Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MEMBERS' POST OFFICE (CLOSURE)

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I wonder whether I might raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, about a matter which has given rise to some difficulty to some of my hon. and right hon. Friends as a result of the strike of Post Office clerks. You will be aware that in consequence of this strike the Members' Post Office here in the Palace has not been operating. There is a notice on the outside indicating that it is hoped that service might be resumed by 11.30, but, of course, we shall have to wait and see.
I raise this point of order with great hesitation, for I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say that we get superb service in the Members' Post Office. The clerks are extremely attentive to our wishes and are always most efficient, courteous and helpful. It is for this reason that I raise this point of order with some hesitation. You will be aware that at yesterday's sitting of Standing Committee A, which is considering the Finance Bill, we started with a sittings Motion standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that the Committee should resume its next sitting on Tuesday. As a result of various Amendments moved during discussion of the Motion, the Chancellor accepted a proposal that instead of Tuesday we should sit on Monday.
At once it became apparent that Amendments would need to be put down today if they were to appear on the Notice Paper on Monday, and even then they would be starred Amendments. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), the Chairman of the Committee, has indicated that, although he will not accept manuscript Amendments, he has already selected one or two starred Amendments. I know for a fact that there are some Amendments we are hoping to table on

behalf of interests which consult my hon. and right hon. Friends, but most of the suggested amendments are in the post office and cannot be got at with the result that the Amendments may not be tabled today.
This places us in a difficult and embarassing situation. I wonder if it could be indicated to the Chairman of Standing Committee A that as a result of the difficulties which have arisen by this curious concatenation of events he might possibly accept certain manuscript Amendments during Monday's sitting. This is a point which I respectfully suggest is with your competence to judge as a point of order. I express no opinion on the merits or demerits of the stoppage which has given rise to this difficulty, but I emphasise that there is considerable difficulty as a result of these events.

Sir H. Harrison: Further to that point of order. I think this is an unprecedented situation. I therefore ask you, or through you the Leader of the House, whether it was known that this was going to happen and whether some arrangements could not have been made so that hon. Members could themselves get their mail. They have been deliberately debarred from getting their letters which have been sent here. This is without precedent in the Palace of Westminster. It is intolerable that hon. Members should be stopped from getting their mail.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I first deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) as to whether preparation could have been made. That is a matter which the hon. Member must take up with the Leader of the House.
On the issue itself, I was pleased, and I think the House was pleased, to hear the tribute the hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) paid to the Post Office staff who serve us so faithfully and well day in and day out.
On the issue itself, I understand that this is an official stoppage of counter staff which has been called by the Union of Post Office Workers in support of wage claims by the postal and telegraph grades. The stoppage is apparently nation-wide for a period of two hours varying from one area to another. That


period began here at 9.30, so I am happy to be able to assure the hon. Member that the postal facilities will be restored in rather less than half an hour, so that most of the eventualities which he fears probably will not arise.
On the broad issue, Mr. Speaker has no power to direct a Chairman of one of the Standing Committees to accept or reject Amendments.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Further to that point of order. You said, Mr. Speaker, that the general matter of the arrangements which might have been made was one for the Leader of the House. Since he is here, and since it is the Government who have caused this mess, might he not say how he intends to get us out of it?

Mr. Speaker: I think that what I have said pretty well ends the matter: in 20 minutes I think the problem will have solved itself.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 2.

SPORTS AND GAMES WHERE PAYMENT IS MADE BY SPECTATORS.

Amendment proposed [26th April], in page 2, line 5, after 'payment' to insert directly or indirectly'.—[Mr. Archer]:

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

11.12 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have, as usual, posted up my selection of Amendments. At the end of our proceedings last week, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) was addressing the House.

Sir Cyril Black: We were advised on behalf of the Home Office that these words would make no legal difference to the Bill. I accept that, but it means that there can be no objection to their inclusion, and I hope that the Amendment will not be opposed. While the insertion makes no legal difference, the words would serve a useful purpose by making the legal position clear to the layman. This is very important, because reference has been made to various subterfuges which have occasionally been used to get over the provisions of the existing law and to enable payments to be made which are illegal. Of course, laymen may not be entirely clear about what in law constitutes and does not constitute a payment.
Laymen may have misconceived the legal position and have acted in good faith although infringing the law. If the Bill is allowed to proceed without the Amendment, laymen may be able to plead that they did not know that indirect payments were precluded. The Amendment would, therefore, remove any likelihood of a plea of ignorance of the law by a person who was accused of a breach of the law. It is important to make legislation as clear as possible, not only to trained lawyers but even more to laymen who may be genuinely trying to understand it.
This is particularly true when the criminal law is involved, as it is in this case, and I therefore strongly support the Amendment.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I also support the Amendment and ask the promoter of the Bill to accept it. I do not want to repeat what my hon. Friend has said, but whatever the strict legal position—of course, I accept the advice given to the Under-Secretary—it would be of great advantage to the public to have it made crystal-clear that, whether the payment is made directly or indirectly, it will be covered.
I strongly support the Amendment and hope that it will be accepted.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I cannot completely accept the Under-Secretary's interpretation that, if payment were made for a cricket scorecard, that would be a payment for entrance. That is questionable. Is it not rather payment after entrance? This is a small point, but there is some chronology in the argument which is important and cannot be disregarded.
My hon. Friend said that the Bill liberalises sport and entertainment on Sunday, so that there would not be the present temptation to fiddle, but I should have thought that, with more and more people feeling liberalised and attending these spectacles on more and more occasions, it would rather lead to more opportunities for fiddling the system of charges.
Undoubtedly more people will be involved, both in the spectacles and in the audiences, and in that case it will be much more difficult to have any sort of control unless the legal definition is water-tight. That is what I dispute. With the greatest respect to the Under-Secretary, I do not think that it covers this point. In another place, Lord Willis said:
…it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw a legal distinction"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Was the noble Lord speaking officially on behalf of the Government?

Mr. MacMillan: He spoke as the sponsor of the Bill, Mr. Speaker.
…it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw a legal distinction between amateur and profes-

sional sport and certainly difficult to draw a distinction in their ability to draw crowds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 21st November, 1966; Vol. 278, c. 18.]
Crowds require many services apart from the actual entertainment. They require parking facilities for motor cars and buses and, since during a fairly long entertainment they are apt to get hungry, they require catering services and this raises the question of charges for such services after admission. So it is not a new thing to find notices at the entrance to such places bearing words to the effect of, "Join our club and you will be able to come free every other time."
There will still be ways to evade this provision. Then people find that they are expected to pay for things which are thrust upon them after they have been admitted. When my hon. Friend interprets the sale of a cricket score-card as a charge for entrance, I doubt whether he can sustain that legally at present and I doubt whether it could be done under the provision which will be made.
The owner of a cinema chain came to see hon. Members when we were debating the abolition of the Entertainments Duty on cinemas. We were told by her that she could not make them pay if it were not for the charges for sales of things like tobacco, cigarettes, ice cream, lemonade and other soft drinks once people had been admitted. Certainly, a charge was made for admission, but the profit was actually made after the charge for admission inside the building.
I do not think that we have any guarantee to date from the Minister or from my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) that that will be eliminated. Therefore, something which would put into effect the spirit of these words—possibly another form of words, though I doubt whether that is necessary—is essential if we are to close this well-developed and traditional loophole, with which we are all familiar.
After all, these spectacles have to be financed by somebody. They have to be paid for partly in advance and, no doubt, partly afterwards. Because of the bigger number of such spectacles in future, accommodating greater numbers of people, there will have to be more and more selling of programmes, selling of cushions, high fees for parking, and all the other things associated with these


events. Therefore, mere entrance of itself will not by any means be the most important item in these transactions.

Mr. William Hamling: Will it help my hon. Friend if I remind him again that I am not resisting the Amendment?

Mr. MacMillan: Last week, the Minister said that the Amendment was not necessary. Perhaps my hon. Friends have not consulted since that was said.
This is my difficulty. The Minister's point was that either a person pays for the privilege of admission or he does not. That is impeccable as a mere statement of fact. It does not mean that either a person pays for admission or he does not pay for any goods or services after admission which are associated with his admission and with the purpose of his being there. It does not cover that point.
I should like the Minister to elucidate further his argument. It is not only a question of paying for admission or not paying for admission. It is a question of paying for services, and possibly goods, associated with a person's admission after he has entered without charge. Perhaps the Minister will say a few words about that, in which case I shall be more satisfied.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): I think that all that needs to be said is that, if these words are added, the definition is tighter. It might well be that certain people who would not be caught by the present wording would be caught if the Amendment were made. Last Friday, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science, said that it had not seemed to be necessary but that he did not advise the House against the acceptance of the Amendment. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) has said that he is prepared to accept the Amendment.

Sir Knox Cunningham: This is a change. Last Friday, we were given certain advice. Now the advice is changed. This is very important. It should be made absolutely clear that the Amendment will tighten the Bill and is necessary.

Mr. Ennals: Nothing that I have said adds to or subtracts from what was said

by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary last week. The only new situation since my hon. Friend spoke last week is that my hon. Friend the sponsor of the Bill has accepted the Amendment. The advice of the Government on the legal implications has not led us to doubt the wisdom of my hon. Friend's acceptance.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir C. Black: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 9, to leave out '2 a.m.' and insert: the expiration of Saturday'.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to a group of Amendments. With this Amendment we shall discuss the following Amendments: Nos. 36, 4, 6, 37, 7, 10, 38, 11, 39, 12 and 18.

Sir C. Black: The Amendment, together with the other Amendments which you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that it is in order for us to discuss in the course of this one debate, deals with what might be called the prohibited period, because the Bill is drawn in such a way that it relaxes the law in reference to certain classes of activities on Sunday. It does not relax the law for the whole period of Sunday, but seeks to do so from 2 o'clock in the afternoon until 2 o'clock on Monday morning.
This series of Amendments seeks to make three alterations. Two of them are alternatives the one to the other, but the third series is distinct from it. Series 1 and 2 deal with the question of what should be the commencing time for the prohibited period. Series 3 deals with what should be the concluding time for the prohibited period.
First, Amendment No. 3, and the Amendments associated with it, seeks to substitute 'the expiration of Saturday' for '2 a.m.'. We are dealing here with a period of two hours from midnight on Saturday until 2 o'clock on Sunday morning. The natural time for a prohibition affecting Sundays would be at the beginning of Sunday and not 2 o'clock in the morning. Therefore, unless a very good and sufficient reason can be given why the beginning of the prohibited period should be 2 a.m. and not 12 midnight on Saturday, I shall press this Amendment upon the House.
This matter was briefly debated, according to my recollection, in Standing


Committee; and, again according to my recollection, no answer was given by the promoter of the Bill to the points which were then raised in support of substituting midnight on Saturday and to explain why he considers that 2 o'clock on Sunday morning should be preserved. I hope that in the course of the debate we shall be told why the promoter of the Bill thinks that the time he has inserted in the Bill is more appropriate than that I wish to substitute for it.
I want to look for a few moments at the effect on the major classes of activity which will become legalised on part of Sunday if the Bill passes into law. There are, first, the sporting events which under the Bill will be permitted in future within the permitted hours on Sunday, with people paying as spectators to enter, and with performers being paid for their services for taking part in them. It can hardly be seriously suggested that these great out-door sporting events, such as football cup matches and cricket test matches, will be held between midnight on Saturday and 2 o'clock on Sunday morning.
That would be unthinkable. Therefore, I submit that there can be no objection to the substitution of midnight on Saturday for 2 o'clock on Sunday morning and that all grounds of reason support this substitution. Making this alteration may cause hon. Members to consider such in-door events as cinema and theatre performances and entertainments of that sort. Some people may desire such indoor activities to go on until 2 a.m. on Sunday morning, but it is not necessary for that to happen.
There is no reason why the entertainment in question should not start a little earlier on Saturday evening so that it concludes by not later than midnight on Saturday. This would result in those being entertained being able to get home at a reasonable hour and for the entertainers to do likewise, remembering that they will not be getting home until the early hours of Sunday morning, even if the Amendment is accepted. For these reasons, 12 midnight on Saturday is the natural, proper and expedient time.
The second group of Amendments seeks to substitute 1 a.m. on Sunday for 2 a.m. on Sunday. Here again, I would prefer 1 a.m. if I had to choose between the two, but I see little logic in substituting

1 a.m. for 2 a.m. and, therefore, if I must vote for either of the two alternatives, I shall vote for 12 midnight on Saturday.
The third series of Amendments deals with the other end of the scale and seeks to substitute 7 p.m. for 2 p.m. on Sunday, taking the view that Sunday afternoon should be preserved from these activities in the same way that Sunday morning is preserved. There are at least two sufficient reasons why we should accept 7 p.m. instead of 2 p.m. on Sunday. By limiting the provision to 7 p.m. we would ensure that only one performance of an entertainment would take place.
I tabled an Amendment the effect of which would have been to make it illegal to have more than one performance on Sunday, but that was not selected, with the result that if the Amendment to substitute 7 p.m. for 2 p.m. is carried, it would, as a practical matter, achieve the purpose which I had in mind, although my Amendment was a little more limited in scope.
If we take the view, as most people do, that we must look with care at what is involved in Sunday employment as a result of this Bill, we should consider the hours during which people will be compelled to work. I am against the Bill in all its main assumptions. I wish to minimise the employment of labour to the greatest possible extent during the whole of the 24 hours of Sunday. But if we accept that some concession must be made to those who support the Bill, we still have a duty, if we cannot entirely protect from Sunday employment those who will be involved if the Bill becomes law, to seek to reduce as much as we possibly can the number of hours during which they will have to work.
If the cinemas are to be opened on Sundays—as occurs in many parts of the country as a result of local polls—and if now, for the first time, the theatres, with the larger number of people who are employed in them compared with, for example, the cinemas, are to open on Sundays, it is not unreasonable to say that there should be only one performance during the day, which means that if there is a 7 p.m. start there will be ample time for that performance to occur. On the other hand, if the time of 2 p.m. remains in the Bill, there will be nothing


to prevent there being a matinée on Sunday afternoon with a later performance in the evening.
Remembering that most of the people engaged in the theatrical business—whether they be actors or those employed in running theatres—must work hard and for long hours during the six weekdays, it is not unreasonable to say that if they are to be compelled to work on Sundays in addition, the period of their labour should be confined to one performance, and this would be accomplished by substituting 7 p.m. for 2 p.m.
The promoter of the Bill has explained that he made the starting hour for Sunday entertainments 2 p.m. in view of representations made to him that these entertainments should not overlap morning worship in churches and chapels. While that concession did not satisfy me and many others, we appreciate that it was sincerely made from a good motive and from a desire to meet the deeply held convictions of many people. In many parts of the country Sunday afternoons are occupied on a large scale in churches and chapels by those who attend Sunday schools, which normally meet at about 3 p.m.
Sunday school attendances as well as church and chapel attendances may not be as great as they were 50 or even 25 years ago, but they are still, particularly in some areas, very large indeed. What-ever views hon. Members hold about religion and its place in human life—and these are basically matters for individual judgment—it cannot be denied that the influence of the Sunday school movement in the past 100 years has been profoundly significant for good. The influence of Sunday school attendance on those who have attended has been a good one for the remainder of their lives.
We know that today the temptations for young people are infinitely greater than they were when most hon. Members were children. The counter attractions to the Sunday school did not exist on the same scale 50 or even 25 years ago. If, because of a desire to avoid infringing the morning hour of worship, it be logical to exclude the Sunday morning from the period in which these activities are to be legalised, it is equally reasonable to argue that the afternoon

should be avoided because of the interference with the Sunday schools that would result if these great sporting events and other entertainments were then available.
I hope that it will be thought that I have advanced with moderation solid and reasonable argument which will appeal to the promoter of the Bill who, in some other respects, has not been unsympathetic to representations that have been made to him. What is, perhaps, more important, I hope that they may appeal to the House as a whole.

Mr. Hamling: It might help the House if I were now to intervene in order to prevent those who have tabled this Amendment and Amendments 6 and 10 from being the victims of their foolishness. I hope quietly and moderately to show how absurd these Amendments are.
The Crathorne Report recommended that 2 a.m.—and 3 a.m. in the West End of London—should be the start of the close season for entertainments, but that the start of the close season for sports should be midnight on Saturday. The Bill adopts the same close season for both days, since that does away with any need to distinguish in borderline cases. It also avoids the risk of anomalies becoming apparent as between Clause 2 and Clause 3.
The Amendment would make the present situation even more restrictive. Cinemas in the West End of London at present open quite frequently at mid-night on Saturday and remain open until Sunday—the same thing applies to dances. I frequently go to dances on a Saturday night in my borough which do not finish until after midnight. The Amendment would prohibit that state of things and would lead to even greater restrictions than we now have. At the same time, it does not, and cannot, place these restrictions on drinking clubs, on strip clubs, and on licensed premises.
It seems odd that a Baptist should seek to limit reasonable and wholesome entertainment yet permit these other places to continue unhindered. It seems very odd for a Nonconformist to say that in future, in places such as the West End of London, all one can do between midnight on Saturday and 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. on Sunday is booze or sex—[Interruption.] Hon.


Members may think this is rather amusing, but it is not. Thousands, perhaps millions, of tourists come to London every year from overseas. They seek reasonable entertainment on a Saturday night. At the present time they can obtain facilities for wholesome entertainment after midnight—perhaps until 3 o'clock on Sunday morning. The Amendment would drive them into a very restricted set of entertainments and pursuits.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that because a man cannot go to a theatre he will automatically resort to drink or sex?

Mr. Hamling: I do not know whether my hon. Friend understands how young people enjoy themselves in the west of London on Saturday night. Many of them go to dance halls which do not close until after midnight. They say, "We are seeking to enjoy ourselves." If the dance halls and the cinemas are closed and they have to seek entertainment elsewhere, where will they go? They will go into drinking clubs, and perhaps into other places that you and I, Mr. Speaker, might not visit, and which some hon. Members quite clearly do not know exist. But those places do exist.
We must protect our young people from this kind of discrimination. The Amendments would prevent all reasonable sport and entertainment—

Mr. Peter Mahon: On serious reflection, does not my hon. Friend think that this is a most outlandish and serious castigation of young people who go into London without any such bad thoughts in their minds?

Mr. Hamling: My hon. Friend quite clearly does not know what goes on in the West End of London—[HON. MEMBERS: "How do you?"] I have teenage daughters—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We had a pleasant debate last week: today let us have another.

Mr. Hamling: I am very anxious that hon. Members should understand the pursuits that young people follow these days. A great many quite decent young people frequently stay out in the West

End until after midnight. Some hon. Members may think that shocking—

Mr. James Dempsey: I appreciate and respect my hon. Friend's views on the West End of London, but this legislation does not apply only to the West End of London but to England and Wales.

Mr. Hamling: That is so. One can think of Liverpool up to 2 a.m. on Sunday—my hon. Friend knows that I come from Liverpool. I also know Green's Playhouse in Glasgow, where I have frequently danced on Saturday until turned midnight. The Amendment would prohibit that but would allow drinking clubs to remain open. I am surprised at hon. Members who, recognising the facts, say, "We shall not do anything about this, but we shall prevent whole-some pleasure."
In the winter months, we often have indoor professional tennis at Wembley—quite a reasonable entertainment and spectacle. I call it an entertainment, although it might be classed as a sport. The Amendment would forbid that, yet those who have tabled it seem to accept without much fear—not knowing the real world in which we live—that much less desirable sports and entertainments would be open.
Hon. Members should understand the folly of this sort of Amendment. If it were accepted, it would mean that in London and the other big cities the only entertainment available after midnight on Saturday would be drinking clubs, striptease clubs, and the like. I am astonished that Nonconformists should put that point.
I now turn to the second group of Amendments, which are equally foolish. They seek to prevent sports—including amateur sports—and entertainments up to 7 p.m. in cases where the spectators pay. There is a good deal of amateur sport in respect of which payment is made at the gate and which would be permitted quite openly under the Bill although it is at present carried on through fiddles. The Amendments would forbid the carrying on of such sports.
The great argument against the Bill is that it would make Sunday more commercial. But what are the supporters of


these Amendments trying to do? The Amendments would not prevent the big commercial sports or entertainments from being held; on the contrary, they would prevent the small ones, which ordinary people go to see on Sunday afternoons. They would prevent amateur football, and certain county cricket, being played on Sundays. If anyone thinks that county cricket is a great commercial undertaking he has not studied the accounts of the Lancashire County Cricket Club, which I support. That is not a vast commercial undertaking.
Dance halls and cinemas could carry on after 7 p.m. The only kind of entertainment and sport which would be permitted on Sunday if these Amendments were carried would be the very commercial ones that their supporters seek to prevent.

Sir C. Black: Nonsense.

Mr. Hamling: The hon. Member says "Nonsense", but he should understand the logic of his argument. It is no good his calling my argument nonsense; he must understand the logic of his case; and the logic of his case is that very reasonable amateur sports, such as the Badminton Horse Show, would be forbidden. I do not know whether he regards that as commercialism—or whether he regards county cricket, amateur football or amateur cricket as commercialism, but the commercialism which the Amendments would permit is that which seeks to make money out of sport and entertainment in the evening.

Mr. John Farr: The hon. Member has referred to amateur cricket. How would that be affected in any way?

Mr. Hamling: Any amateur cricket match at which money is taken at the gate—[Interruption]. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman ever watches Blackheath play cricket. That club charges at the gate for people to watch. It is not possible to watch Blackheath play cricket without paying at the gate. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been living for the last 20 years.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting from this group of Amendments, which seek to extend the prohibited times.

Mr.Hamling: Under these Amendments this kind of amateur pursuit would be forbidden. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It would. The intervention was directed to pointing out to me that this kind of amateur cricket would not be covered, because no charge is made at the gate. I was trying to rebut that argument. It is a relevant point.
The fact that hon. Members seek to intervene from a sitting position in this way indicates that they have not understood the Bill or the implications of these Amendments. They should do their homework before they take part in these debates.

Mr. Farr: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that about 95 per cent. of all the amateur cricket that is played on Sundays is played without admission fees being charged at the gate? If he is not aware of that where has he been living for the last 20 years?

Mr. Hamling: I do not know where the hon. Member gets his figure of 95 per cent. Admission charges are made to see a good deal of club cricket. Certainly a good deal of amateur football cannot be seen without the payment of an admission fee. I do not know whether the hon. Member knows anything about the Isthmian League, the Corinthian League, and similar leagues, but it is not possible to see teams in those leagues play without paying an admission fee. I am sure that the hon. Member will not say that Dulwich Hamlet or Walthamstow Avenue is a professional football club. I have already mentioned Blackheath, which is the club that I watch.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Does the hon. Member agree that the vast amount of cricket played in villages throughout England is played without any fee being charged? It is played by amateurs who get together just for the joy of playing.

Mr. Hamling: I agree, but nobody can say, in respect of admission charges, "Amateur cricket—no; professional cricket—yes." It is not possible to draw a close distinction like that. The hon. Member may live in Northern Ireland—I understand that he does not. He lives in England, in which case he ought to know better. Many amateur clubs who take part in all sorts of sport charge admission fees. The Amendments would


bar that sort of sport being played on Sundays, although it would permit the very kind of commercial entertainment or sport to which hon. Members opposite so strongly object.
The hon. Member talked about employment. Large-scale employment on Sundays is brought about by commercial entertainments which these Amendments would not seek to control. They would seek to control only those spectacles and entertainments for which the least amount of labour is engaged. I hope that hon. Members will try to understand the logic of the argument put forward in support of these Amendments, and will withdraw them.

Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I want to draw special attention to Amendment No. 18, which has particular reference to Wales and Monmouthshire. I raise this matter because of the differences which exist between Wales and England in respect of religious services. In England the most popular service is that which takes place in the morning; the Welsh tradition is quite the opposite. Most members of congregations try to attend the three services that take place in Wales on Sundays. I do not suggest that they are all able to go to all the services on every Sunday—but the leastattended service is that which is held in the morning.
In the afternoon in Wales we have our Sunday school, which never has been an infants' Sunday school. It has always been for adults, with the result that most members of chapels go to Sunday school in the afternoon and also to the evening service, which is the most popular. Consequently, most members of chapels go to services in the afternoon at 2 p.m. and in the evening at 6 p.m.
That is why I support the proposition that the time should be changed from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m. so that, if sports take place, they take place after the evening service in Wales.

Mr. Michael Alison: I want to make a brief comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). I was a little disappointed with him because of the vehemence with which he sought to denounce Amendments which have been put down in good faith and with a view to achieving something acceptable to

everybody. The hon. Member's present attitude is uncharacteristic of him. By nature he is a friendly and tolerant soul, but on this occasion he spoke with great vehemence when one would have expected all the vehemence to come from those who are digging in on religious grounds. On the contrary, they have been most constructive and moderate in their approach. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West will allow that customary smile to appear on his face a little more regularly.

12 noon.

Mr. Hamling: The reason why I denounced the Amendment with such vehemence is the very severe implications which they could have on the morality of our big cities.

Mr. Alison: I appreciate that the hon. Member feels strongly about this matter but he, for his part, must appreciate that there are hon. Members on this side of the Committee who have nothing but the most constructive and humane objectives in view and who feel very strongly about the fact that he is not able, apparently, to make a constructive and positive approach to what I believe to be very reasonable proposals. We feel strongly that he was in error in his vehemence in Committee upstairs that he could not meet us at all on the rather narrow point.

Mr. Hamling: I have met the hon. Member.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member has not met us on the Crathorne proposals. He has not taken steps to see that there will not occur on Sundays great events in which large numbers of people will be involved.

Mr. Hamling: On a point of order. We are discussing Amendments which are very limited in character. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the point which the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) is making has already been covered, particularly in new Clause 2 with which we dealt last week.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) must allow the chair to decide what is in order.

Mr. Alison: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, for your help. I must tell the hon. Member for Woolwich, West that that kind of


attempt to run the debate with an iron hand is precisely the sort of intervention which loses him sympathy. We are trying to be helpful.

Mr. Hamling: No.

Mr. Alison: I appreciate that there are many difficulties and that the hon. Member has tried fairly to point out some of the objections which he sees which would arise from the limitations proposed in the Amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones). From the point of view of those seeking a Crathorne solution, the Amendments represent half a loaf which is better than no bread at all.

Mr. John Parker: Originally 12.30 p.m. was proposed and in fact 2 p.m. was adopted. Surely that is a reasonable concession.

Mr. Alison: I acknowledge that that was a genuine and, I believe, helpful and constructive change which Lord Willis made in another place in response to the Archbishop of York.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must leave the Archbishop of York, and return to the Amendments.

Mr. Alison: I acknowledge that the Amendments are unsatisfactory in many respects—and I am glad to see the smile back at least temporarily on the face of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West. But even though they may be unsatisfactory in many respects, from my point of view they are the half loaf which is better than no bread at all in an attempt to keep down employment on those occasions.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West is, I acknowledge, the great expert on the Bill. He can claim to know every jot and tittle of the Bill, backwards, forwards, inside out and upside down. But may I turn to his suggestion about people at dance halls on a Saturday night—people who paid for their admission before the hour of midnight. In most of these dance halls they would have entered before the magic hour and would have made their payment before the magic hour. If hon. Members turn to Clause 2—and I am not certain that I shall carry the lawyers with me on this point—they

will see that it imposes a restriction on those who "enter". I see that both the hon. Member for Woolwich, West and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science shake their heads. But the Clause reads:
If the occupier of any premises permits them to be used on any occasion for enabling members of the public to enter on them"—
I suspect that if one has already entered the premises and paid for entry before the magic hour—I see one or two hon. Members who are lawyers shaking their heads. Perhaps I am on the wrong ground.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: Surely if the hon. Member were standing at the wicket and shaking his head he would be very much more popular than if he had put up his finger.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): Perhaps it would be more appropriate if I said that I could reasonably rule most hon. Members clearly off-side on this matter.

Mr. Alison: Fortunately the hon. Member has not the whistle on this occasion. That is with you, Mr. Speaker, and you have not been blowing it. It is arguable that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West has been a little too sensitive about the impossibility, if the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon were accepted, of those who were in dance halls at midnight being able to go on dancing until the natural conclusion of that entertainment.
It seems to me to be odd that he should suggest that entertainment which would be described as healthy entertainment would be ruled out under the Amendment, as it would all stop at midnight, and then the gullible, sheep-like youth of this country would take part in all sorts of less desirable entertainment in clubs for which licences have to be obtained, or which have a restricted membership, where they could drink. It seems to me inconsistent for him to say that there would be that kind of entertainment which could get past the law and which could still carry on and that innocent, wholesome and straightforward events in the sporting world could not use exactly the same method of getting their membership and their support on a Sunday afternoon by subscriptions to


the club, not involving payment for the event, which would enable them to carry on their activities, subject to Clause 2, which he kindly accepted. The law would provide the same opportunities for the county cricket clubs to get money other than by charging for admission.
The difficulty is that the hon. Member for Woolwich has not been able to find a method, which I believe it would have been possible to find under the much more constructive and limited approach of the Crathorne proposals. It is a matter of great regret to me that I shall find myself supporting the Amendments. I fully understand the difficulties which the hon. Member for Woolwich, West explained, but, on the basis that half a loaf is better than no bread, I shall support the Amendment put down and argued briefly and succinctly by the hon. Member for Wrexham.

Mr. Ennals: We are dealing with three different types of Amendment, one which would introduce a new restriction on entertainment after midnight on Saturday, the second of which would bring into conformity the provisions under Clauses 2 and 3 so that sporting functions would also be restricted at midnight and the third of which deals with the suggestion that the close season should be extended until 7 p.m. It should be recognised that in two of these sets of proposals, rather than moving forward to liberalise our laws and regulations, we should be proposing additional restrictions.
I take, first, the question of entertainment and whether it should cease at midnight or proceed until 2 a.m., or 3 a.m. in the West End. Under the present law, dancing and functions of that kind may continue into Sunday morning until 2 a.m., or 3 a.m. in the West End, where liquor is sold under the Licensing Act, 1964. It is suggested that, even though such functions are permitted under that Act, other forms of entertainment should be restricted.
The House will recall that there are other forms of entertainment, midnight matinees, for example, held not only in London but in other parts of the country, which may start at 11, 11.30 or midnight. Charitable functions would in some cases be hit by a requirement that what may now proceed till the early hours of the morning should hereafter be prohibited.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) said that all would be well if people had paid to come in before midnight. I am advised that the Clause as drafted would not have that effect, but would require the cessation of functions if this group of Amendments were carried. I hope, therefore, this being a restriction cutting back on certain functions which are now permitted, that the Amendments will not be accepted.
Now, the second group of Amendments would apply a different rule to sports and spectacles. It may be asked whether there is any good reason why, if the cinema may continue till 2 a.m., a wrestling match should stop on the brink of midnight. I do not suppose that many wrestling matches go on until the early hours of the morning, and I imagine that we would not wish to encourage them to do so, but there are some sporting functions in which it is necessary to reach a conclusion and in which extra time is granted until one side or the other is the victor.
For the purpose of clarification—the main purpose of this Measure is to bring clarity and conformity into a situation which is at present very confused—there is much to be said for having conformity in regard to the functions covered by both Clauses 2 and 3. For example, there is the question of deciding whether a variety entertainment consisting of an acrobatic display is or is not
a demonstration of prowess in a sport or game
under Clause 2 or is an activity covered by Clause 3. Difficulties of classification cannot be avoided, but the greater the measure of consistency achieved, the more is the legislation to be generally understood and observed without resentment.

Mr. Ron Lewis: My hon Friend said that wrestling matches do not take place after midnight. Does he not recall that, unfortunately, several wrestling matches have taken place after midnight within this Chamber during the past three years?

Mr. Ennals: Very rarely after midnight on a Saturday. Thank heaven, even with the battles which we had in former days on the Finance Bill, we were not still at grips with the nation's economy up to 2 o'clock on a Sunday morning.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I follow the argument which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State advances about charity performances which take place after midnight. In Bristol, there is shortly to be such an occasion at a cinema in aid of the R.A.F. Benevolent Fund. Very often, these functions cannot take place until after the normal cinema performance has finished.
But now comes the point I want clarified. If we write in another time—midnight, 1 a.m. or whatever it may be—shall we take away from the local licensing bench, where such questions at present come under local option, the right to permit a midnight performance? Should we take away from local licensing justices the right to grant an extension of time? The system seems to work perfectly well at present.

Mr. Ennals: I am advised that it would do just that. That is why I said that, if we were to carry that group of Amendments, we should be turning the clock back and stopping a number of functions which, I imagine, hon. Members on both sides would be content to see continue.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Wilkins: This is an important matter. May we be referred to the provisions in the Bill which repeal parts of other Acts and thus take away that right from local licensing justices?

Mr. Ennals: I can only say that the advice from my legal advisers is that the terms of the Bill would carry that consequence. I should like a little notice of the question about the precise reference, and perhaps I might intervene later to give the answer.

Mr. Peter Archer: Perhaps I can assist. I understand that the answer is that the licensing justices have no power to license something which is otherwise illegal. The Amendments would make it illegal.

Mr. Ennals: The advantage of having a lawyer behind me is apparent. I am most grateful.
Now, the third group of Amendments which propose that what one might call the close season for sports and entertainments for which an admission charge is

made should be extended till 7 p.m. on Sunday. The practical effect would probably be to prevent the staging of most commercial open-air sporting events, since most of them must take place in daylight, but it would allow indoor commercial sport and entertainment which could start after 7 p.m. Thus, most admission-charged cricket and football, amateur or professional, unless on flood-lit grounds, would effectively be prohibited on a Sunday, but boxing, wrestling, indoor tennis and swimming would be permitted in the evening.
There seems little logic in that, and, once again, we have to recognise that we should be imposing restrictions on events which now take place. Many hon. Members know that, by devious means, cricket matches take place on a Sunday afternoon, a form of charge being made by a programme charge, parking fee, or the like. It is precisely that sort of tacit evasion of the law which we are seeking to avoid by introducing a law which is clear and precise. If this group of Amendments were carried the effect would be not only to discourage and stop many quite modest open-air functions which cause no disturbance to the public and which people enjoy but also to encourage evening football matches on grounds equipped with flood-lights, thus involving ground staff in evening rather than afternoon work.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) was particularly anxious that we should not cause more work for workpeople on Sunday than necessary. This is an understandable point of view. But it must be appreciated that, if we say that these activities must not take place during the afternoon and may take place only in the evening, the effect will be to concentrate more work in a Sunday evening than would otherwise be the case.
I hope, therefore, that the House will not accept the three groups of Amendments before us.

Sir Knox Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman took a rather snap decision on the legal question put to him by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), because the answer was suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer). This is an important matter.


The answer may depend on whether certain other Statutes are repealed, or would subsequently have to be repealed, under this Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman take advice from other sources and have the answer given to us later?

Mr. Ennals: By leave of the House, because I had sat down, may I say that I have now taken other advice than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer), whose views I greatly respect. The wording of Clauses 2 and 3 is absolute and, therefore, they have an over-riding effect which up to now has not existed. Justices grant licences on certain conditions and could not do so if the Amendment were carried. Therefore, there could be no entertainment after midnight if the first group of Amendments were carried. This is the advice of my legal department.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: The hon. Gentleman has made a cogent case in saying that the Amendments would impose new restrictions, which I would not wish to do. But neither he nor the sponsor have met the real purpose of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), which was not to produce further restrictions. The fact that the legal interpretation supports the Under-Secretary's view does not destroy the validity of the case that the Bill should not make legal between midnight and 2 a.m. anything which is not now legal.
With great respect to the sponsor, his argument against the first group of Amendments does not hold water. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon asked, why seek to make legal certain things which are not now legal? The hon. Member said, passionately and sincerely, that it was to keep young people out of strip clubs, drinking clubs and dance halls. If he thinks the only way to achieve that is to make certain new things legal, that is a curious argument.

Mr. Hamling: My Bill does not make legal after midnight anything which is now illegal, but the Amendments seek to make illegal what is now quite legal.

Captain Orr: Therefore, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should do what he so generously did on Clause 2 and accept

the first Amendment, perhaps improving it in another place so as not to impose further restrictions but to make it plain that nothing in the Bill makes lawful something which is not now lawful between those hours—[Interruption.] Of course it is. If I am wrong, I should like to hear now arguments about it, which I have not heard yet. Without such arguments, I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones) made a very fair case for the protection which the sponsor has already conceded with regard to the interference with Sunday morning services. In some parts of the country it is the Sunday evening service which many people think is most important. If the hon. Gentleman could devise some protection for that, even without accepting the second group of Amendments, we might look at the matter differently. But I cannot see the logic of accepting a "close period" until 2 p.m. for that purpose without extending it to other parts of the country. Some form of local option might be the answer.
The hon. Member has not made the case against this group of Amendments. The case put by the Under-Secretary has to be met, but the right way is for the sponsors to accept the Amendment and, in another place, to put it in a form which will give this protection.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Mr. Peter Mahon rose—

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. We are discussing together a great number of Amendments, some of them quite different. Could you, Mr. Speaker, tell us now on which it would be possible to have a separate vote?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that I have been listening very carefully to the debate with the same object in mind. I can tell the House now that I will allow a Division on Amendment No. 4 as well as Amendment No. 3.

Mr. Mahon: The longer we consider the Bill, the greater insight we get into its full iniquities. My original opposition was not severe and related only to professional sports. I now find that my hon. Friend is seeking to establish a "midnight marauders' charter", I have


known and admired my hon. Friend for many years, but he has been angry this morning and I must confess now to being angrier still. It should not be said in this House that people who are out after midnight are out to do something which they should not do. To malign our young people as he did was an injustice not only to himself but to the young people and to the House of Commons.
12.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that he would have ruled us offside. However, I think that hon. Members have been tripped up in the penalty area this morning. In considering this Amendment, we have been placed in a cleft stick. Even if they are out after midnight, well-behaved young people are not news. But hon. Members do not come to this House without having a great deal of knowledge of the frailties of human nature and of young people particularly. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West has been rather arrogant in trying to suggest that he understands the full implications of his Bill, whereas other hon. Members are not so wise. But we do our best. We do not lightly give up a day to come here which might be spent doing useful work in our constituencies. We come here because we take a very serious view of legislation passing through the House. I must say to my hon. Friend that, although he may not be very pleased with me, there are some who are not particularly pleased with him.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: It is not my intention to attempt to pour oil on troubled waters, but one knows from one's own experience of introducing a Bill into the House what a difficult and responsible task it is, particularly if the Bill goes on for a very long time. If the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) was a little short-tempered this morning, he is not the first hon. Member introducing a Bill who has found it difficult. As this is a Friday and many others have come to hear the serious arguments involved in this matter, I think that we should get on with our debate on the Amendment rather than argue whether the temper of the hon. Gentleman is good. That is immaterial.

Mr. Peter Mahon: The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) says that he is anxious to get on with the Bill, but his was a very long intervention. The sponsors of the Bill have been most censorious, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he is not the only hon. Member to have had the privilege of introducing a Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted to go out of order but will come to the Amendments, which are about prohibited hours.

Mr. Peter Mahon: I am not greatly concerned about the extra two hours. It is the introduction of professional sport into the Bill which concerns me and about which I know that I can speak at a later time. I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Farr: I was not able to be present last Friday, but I have had the pleasure of reading HANSARD and, quite obviously, one outstanding feature of the debate was the good-natured and efficient way in which the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) introduced his Bill, although I take exception to his suggestion in reply to my intervention about cricket that I have been nowhere in particular for the last 20 years.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) has just said, it is quite out of character for the hon. Gentleman to be other than thoroughly pleasant to hon. Members in all parts of the House, and that remark of his is best forgotten.
However, I regretted the way in which he referred to this group of Amendments. I detected the feeling that, when young people want to continue their fun and games on a Saturday night, the only place for them to go is a club if the Amendment is accepted. That is what he implied.
He is wrong in his supposition. At the moment, if an ordinary group of people want a party in the West End or anywhere else in London on a Saturday night, they go to a restaurant. There is nothing in the Bill which prevents them from continuing their evening's supper or party together in a restaurant after midnight.

Mr. Hamling: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many working-class young people go to West End restaurants?

Mr. Farr: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would seize on that point, and that is why I went on to say "or anywhere else in London". I was not referring specifically to the West End, although, when the hon. Gentleman referred to strip clubs and drinking dens, he implied that they were all in the West End. I agree that I mentioned the West End, but then I enlarged on it.
People who want a party on a Saturday night tend to go to a restaurant or hotel anywhere in London. If the Amendment is accepted, they will be able to continue their activities.

Mr. Ennals: Has the hon. Gentleman thought of the implication which might follow from the acceptance of the Amendment? If the House were to say that it does not want entertainments or sport after midnight, increasingly it might become the custom of licensing justices, who are entitled to grant licences up to 2 a.m. or, in the London area, 3 a.m., to decide that, if the House had indicated that it did not wish to have entertainments, they would not grant licences. This might have the further effect of diminishing the opportunities for people to enjoy themselves after midnight.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful for that observation, which is an eventuality and possibility which those of us who support the Amendment have borne in mind.
Another point that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West made was that amateur cricket would suffer because admission charges could not be levied at Sunday games. One of my activities in the past 20 years has been to play amateur cricket on Sundays. Amateur club sides are the base upon which our national game of cricket rests. However, the number of games on Sundays which depend upon admission charges is minimal. I have said before that probably 95 per cent. of amateur cricket is played without gate money, with village green cricket and club cricket up and down the country. Practically every club exists on the enthusiasm of a group of young people who contribute together—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, but we are talking about prohibited times.

Mr. Farr: Then may I refer to the Amendment, which I support? It was introduced in a very able manner by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), who expressed his desire to see professional sport finishing at midnight on a Saturday rather than continuing until 2 a.m. on Sundays. I support him in what he says. I cannot think of any sports which are widely supported that need to continue after midnight on a Saturday.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West may be a boxing fan—I do not know—but a year or two ago I went to High-bury Stadium to see Cooper and Clay fight their world heavyweight professional boxing contest. There were 30,000 or 40,000 people at Highbury. The match, unfortunately, terminated in the figth or sixth round. Had it gone on until the end of the final round, every one of those 35,000 people would have been clear of the stadium by half-past ten at night.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would my hon. Friend agree that both Cooper and Clay are two good men?

Mr. Farr: I fear I might be out of the bounds of order if I replied to my hon. Friend. However, they are as good as any who have come from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hamling: I am interested in the point about professional boxing never going on after midnight. If things never happen, why introduce Amendments to prohibit them?

Mr. Farr: The hon. Gentleman's logic is getting a little tangled. I am seeking to prevent an entirely unnecessary change in the existing law which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to introduce in the Bill.
One other example of mass spectator sport on Saturday evenings is ice skating. There are many fine stadiums up and down the country. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. George H. Perry) is not here today. He was here last Friday and made a most impressive contribution. He pointed out that there were two league football clubs and


the Notts County cricket ground in his constituency. He could have added a fourth spectator sport which is very active and prominent in his constituency, namely, professional ice hockey. Nottingham has a fine ice hockey stadium and on Saturday nights—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member wishes to debate sport, he must link his argument to the prohibited hours which are suggested in the group of Amendments we are discussing.

Mr. Farr: I am going on to show that the people who participate in ice hockey and ice skating at Nottingham's fine stadium finish at ten o'clock on a Saturday night, chiefly because there is no transporation system to get them away from the city centre. If there was such a city transporation system available, in my view there would still be no demand by people to go skating through to the early hours of Sunday morning. Therefore, the time proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, midnight on Saturday, should be inserted in the Bill. I support his Amendment in that respect.
I now turn to the time of 2 p.m., which the hon. Member for Woolwich, West has put in his Bill, and the time of 7 p.m., which my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon has tabled in yet another Amendment.
I was impressed by the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham). He supported this Amendment largely because, if it was adopted, evensong or Sunday services would not be affected. He is right in what he says. Most evening services in the summer commence at 5.45 or 6 p.m. and they are generally over well before 7 p.m. This Amendment would enable those services to be conducted in reasonable tranquility in a church in a vicinity where professional sport is indulged in.

Mr. Hooley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if professional sport begins at 7 p.m. a vast amount of traffic and movement of people and preparation would go on long before that time?

Mr. Farr: There always is traffic near a football ground. However, I maintain that it will not affect the conduct of

church services so much as the roars and cheers when goals are scored. If what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) says is true, he has a real case for putting a further Amendment in another place making it 8 p.m.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has not appreciated the logic of the case I tried to present when I intervened. If certain events—particularly sports—can only start after 7 p.m., this would mean a concentration of activities starting before 7 p.m. The transport facilities for people moving towards that particular area would coincide with the time when, as far as my church is concerned, Evensong is held, which is at 6.30. The effect of the Amendment would be to interfere more with the evening service than the situation envisaged in the Bill.

Mr. Farr: One thing that we learn in this House is to live in the greatest friendship with those with whom we disagree. I understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but his answer would be to ask his church to conduct evensong at 6 p.m. which it will still be able to conduct in peace and tranquillity. If the hon. Gentleman accepts the Bill as it stands, he will not be able to enjoy evensong in peace and quiet, because there will be the rumble of traffic and roaring and cheering from 2 p.m. onwards.
My hon. Friend's Amendment, proposing 7 p.m. instead of 2 p.m., will have an effect on certain professional sports. There will be nothing to prevent professional football matches being held under artificial lighting or in daylight after 7 p.m., but it will prevent the conduct of long-time running spectator sports such as cricket matches, motor racing and horse-racing.
I have had a lot of correspondence from county cricket clubs and many others interested in cricket, asking me to support the Bill. They tell me that cricket is dying, that it needs the money, that the only way it can live is by getting people to pay for admission on Sundays, and that the present game of sending the blanket round for people to throw money in is not satisfactory because they do not always pay up. My answer to these people—an answer which I sincerely believe to be true—is that I think cricket


is too good a game to die. It is a wonderful game if played in the right spirit.
I wish to refer to a short article in The Times today which refers to the opening match of the season at Lords. The headline is, "Monotony at Lords".

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I am as keen on cricket as is the hon. Member—I have been all my life—but he must talk about the hours of opening. We cannot discuss the future of cricket in general.

Mr. Farr: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I know full well your enthusiasm for the sport. I am not seeking to talk about cricket in general. I am merely explaining that it is not necessary for people to pay to watch cricket on Sundays for the game to survive. That is the argument put forward in letters I have received from those who seek to allow the Clause in the Bill permitting the payment of admission on Sundays. I am seeking to show that the game can flourish and survive without Sunday gate receipts. I trust, therefore, that I may be considered in order in referring to this article which explains why the game is in a state of collapse.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can discuss ways in which cricket might survive other than this one on some other debate.

Mr. Farr: Mr. Speaker, I must express my appreciation for your tolerance, and I trust I shall have an opportunity to take part in a later debate. I conclude by saying that I support the Amendment.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: I would not have intervened had it not been for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). He said that those who supported the Amendments had no idea how young people lived, and that we expected young people to visit the vice spots of London. I have no experience of strip-tease shows and so on, but this is not a London Bill. It is a Measure which will affect the whole of England and Wales. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's sensational remarks will be reported in the Press tomorrow, but that my comments dissociating myself from what he said will not be reported.
I regret that my hon. Friend did not give a proper explanation for rejecting the Amendments, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for the information that he gave. If my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West wants to deal with the licensing laws, he should introduce a Private Bill to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones) talked about Sunday schools being held before 7 p.m. I ask the House to remember that in addition to Sunday schools, churches in Wales hold services which include a sermon at 10.30 a.m., 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. In addition, the churches hold rehearsals for singing festivals. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West may not agree with the Amendments, but I think that he ought to be more reasonable in his outlook.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Tudor Watkins). If the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) was a little more temperate, we would make better progress. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that these were absurd Amendments. Many hon. Members who did not take part in the Committee stage of the Bill are here today. The hon. Gentleman may think that the Amendments are absurd, but many of us do not.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that those who supported the Amendments did not understand the world in which they lived. That is an extremely arrogant assumption. The hon. Gentleman then went on to condemn young people and added that we did not know what young people did with their time. I suggest that the young people of today are very much the same as we were in days gone by, and very much the same as our fathers were in their time.
The Minister said that if we accepted these Amendments the justices might feel themselves restricted and would not grant licences when otherwise they might have done so. That is an extraordinary argument, because I think that the justices will do what they think is right in the circumstances. I do not think that they will be restricted in any way in exercising their normal jurisdiction.
I do not think that the Amendments are absurd. I think that hon. Members are seriously concerned about the problems facing us. If the hon. Member for Woolwich, West wants to make progress with the Bill, he had better be more accommodating and less arrogant.

Mr. Hooley: I would have been more impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) if he had omitted some of his comments about Baptists, Non-conformists, and behaviour in the West End. Those who have religious beliefs recognise that they are living in a secular, and, to a large extent, pagan society, and they are very much in a minority in the views that they hold about Sunday. Nevertheless, there are powerful arguments for having one day of the week on which normal commercial activities are not practised, or at least are subject to severe restriction.
I am not persuaded that Amendment No. 3 is necessary. I think that it will create a new situation which will be at variance with what has been our social practice for a long time. The 2 a.m. rule is liberal in the context of the Bill, and I am not disposed to support the Amendment.
Amendment No. 4 represents a much more significant and serious proposal. I cannot accept that it will make no difference to the possibility of employing people if we have a period of five hours from 7 p.m. to 12 midnight rather than a period of 10 hours from 2 p.m. to

midnight in which commercial entertainment and sport are permitted. It seems fantastic to argue that within a period of five hours there can be as much disturbance and general commercial activity as there can be in 10 hours. Cinemas could put on three performances between 2 p.m. and midnight, whereas perhaps only one would be possible between 7 p.m. and midnight.

With regard to outdoor entertainment, if the permitted period were from 7 p.m. to midnight, it would be possible during a large part of the year, especially as we now have the new Summer Time arrangement for those who must have commercial sport on a Sunday, to organise whatever sport they wanted to provide. By floodlighting and other techniques they could get over the difficulty of a lack of daylight. I am not prepared to enter into a detailed argument about cricket. The 7 p.m. limit would rule out many of the disturbances which would be possible under the 2 p.m. arrangement suggested in the Bill. Therefore, while I do not support the Amendment No. 3, I think there are powerful reasons to support the other proposition, that the time should be 7 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: Mr. E. S. Bishop (Newark) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put, accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes 58.

Division No. 129.]
AYES
 [1.1 p.m. 


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Farr, John
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Bell, Ronald
Goodhew, Victor
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bessell, Peter
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Black, Sir Cyril
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Body, Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Wilkins, W. A.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)



Dempsey, James
Macdonald, A. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Drayson, G. B.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Mr. Joseph Hiley and




Mr. John Cordle.




NOES


Astor, John
English, Michael
Heffer, Eric S. 


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Ennals, David
Hill, J. E. B.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Hooson, Emlyn


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Howie, W.


Concannon, J. D.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gardner, Tony
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Dunnett, Jack
Hamling, William
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Ellis, John
Harper, Joseph
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)




Kerby, Capt. Henry
Moyle, Roland
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Kerr, Dr. David (W' worth Central)
Newens, Stan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Lipton, Marcus
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Lubbock, Eric
Pavitt, Laurence
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


MacColl, James
Peyton, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Worsley, Marcus


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Prior, J. M. L.



Mendelson, J. J.
Rees, Merlyn
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Molloy, William
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Mr. John Parker and


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ryan, John
Mr. James Dickens.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Sharples, Richard

Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 2, line 9, leave out '2 p.m.' and insert '7 p.m.'—[Mr. Tudor Watkins.]

Clause 4.

EMPLOYMENT FOR PURPOSES OF PROVIDING SPECTACLES, &C., REFFERED TO IN SECTIONS 2 OR 3.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): We come now to Amendment No. 16, with which it is suggested that we discuss also Amendments Nos. 14, in page 3, line 2, at end insert 'with normal rates of pay'; and 15, in page 3, line 3, after 'of', insert not less than'.

Mr. Hamling: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 1, to leave out Clause 4.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 60.

Division No. 130.]
AYES
[1.9 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Farr, John
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Bell, Ronald
Goodhew, Victor
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Bessell, Peter
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hiley, Joseph
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Body, Richard
Hooley, Frank
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hooson, Emlyn
Wilkins, W. A.


Cordle, John
Kenyon, Clifford



Cunningham, Sir Knox
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Mr. Tudor Watkins and


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Macdonald, A. H.
Mr. J. Idwal Jones.




NOES


Astor, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Newens, Stan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howie, W.
O'Malley, Brian


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hunt, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pavitt, Laurence


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Costain, A. P.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ryan, John


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Sharples, Richard


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth Central)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Ellis, John
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


English, Michael
Lubbock, Eric
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Ennals, David
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mayhew, Christopher
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mendelson, J. J.
Worsley, Marcus


Gardner, Tony
Molloy, William



Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harper, Joseph
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. John Parker and




Mr. James Dickens.

The purpose of these three Amendments is to remove the provisions regulating Sunday employment. Clause 4 was inserted in Committee against my advice and that of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, but, in its wisdom, the Committee put it in. I am seeking to delete it, even though I am strongly in favour of the principle behind it. The idea of protecting employees who may be required to work on Sundays as a result of the Bill is most attractive, but I am advised that, on examination, it is open to objections of principle as well as technical objections.

The objection of principle is that it is, in general, preferable to leave terms of


employment to the normal negotiating machinery in industry—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is that official Government advice?

Mr. Hamling: If I may finish my sentence.
—or to the specialist machinery provided by Statute in special cases. Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene now?

Mr. McNamara: It is quite all right, thank you.

Mr. Hamling: There is no good reason for providing statutory protection for people required to work on Sundays because of the Bill when others, who are already required to work on Sundays, have no such protection. The only field in which any provision is made for time off in lieu of Sunday morning is in relation to shops, but there is no similarity between the situation in shops and that in entertainment.
The possibility of an employee being dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays should be considered as part of the general problems of unjust dismissal, and I understand that that is being discussed, or has been under consideration by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations. There is no reason why an employee who has agreed to work on Sunday should not be required to stand by his agreement even if he later establishes a religious or conscientious objection to doing so. Furthermore, the Clause as it stands provides no protection for an applicant for employment who has religious or conscientious objection to Sunday work when he is in competition with other applicants who have no similar objections.
They are the objections in principle. But there are some technical objections. As drafted, the Clause applies to any contract of employment and is not limited to employment under the Bill. The Clause reads:
Any contract of employment which states that an employee shall work on Sundays if so required shall provide for a free day in lieu or alternatively for the payment of double-time rates of pay.
I repeat that it begins,
Any contract of employment which states that an employee shall work on Sundays".

It does not refer only to a worker affected by sport or entertainment in other parts of the Bill. It is a general consideration relating to everyone. It relates to transport workers. It would refer to journalists. It would no doubt refer to ministers of religion if they were members of a trade union—and I understand that some of them are. It would refer to Members of Parliament, possibly, who are also members of trade unions and who worked on Sundays. It would apply to power workers and to process workers in continuous process industries. In fact, the Clause would cover such a wide field that this is hardly the kind of Bill in which such a general provision should be included.

Mr. Archer: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Clause applies only to those who work under a contract of employment. It would not apply to hon. Members.

Mr. Hamling: It would certainly apply to the servants of the House. No procedure is provided for establishing religious or conscientious objection. I understand that the Ministry of Labour would be strongly against creating any formal procedure comparable with that for conscientious objectors to military service.
Nor is it clear how the proviso would be enforced. The proviso reads:
Provided that no person shall be required by his contract of employment to work on Sundays who establishes that he has a religious or conscientious objection to so doing.
Would an employee be entitled to reinstatement if dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays? What would happen to a man employed only on Saturdays, say, to assist in a spectacle which is transferred to Sundays, or to a man employed only on Sundays—and there are some people who are employed only on Sundays and not during the week. They would not be covered by the Clause.
I have assured my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) privately, and I do so in the House, that I am very sympathetic to the Clause. I should like to see it included. But I am assured by all the experts, for example the Ministry of Labour, that they do not think that the Clause could be worked, and that they think that it is too general. I am. therefore, rather reluctantly asking


the House to support my Amendment to delete the Clause.

Mr. James Griffiths: Do I gather that the Ministry of Labour advised my hon. Friend that the Clause would not work? Did they give a reason?

Mr. Hamling: May I repeat what I said? I am advised that the Ministry of Labour are opposed to the Clause. That is the advice which I have received. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) will listen to the speech in the debate from the Front Bench. I used simple words: I am advised that the Ministry of Labour is opposed to the Clause. I have not spoken to the Minister or even to his private office, but that is the advice which I have been given. I am sure that my right hon. Friend understands, for he has been on the Front Bench and he has also been on these benches.
Some of my hon. Friends on both sides of the Committee thought earlier that I was being a little impatient. I was certainly impatient. I tend very often to be impatient with those who I think cannot see things as clearly as I think that I see them. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Ore) who comments that that is a very common fault in the House—and it is a very common fault elsewhere. But I assure the House, as I have indicated by my actions if not by my words, that I am a most reasonable man.
I have accepted all sorts of Amendments, sometimes—if I may say this behind my hand—to the discomfiture of the Government Front Bench. But I want to see the law made sensible and clear, and it is very much with that in mind that I am asking the House to delete Clause 4, because I am advised that it would not work and that it certainly would not make the law clear.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The question before the House is important. On Second Reading, I said that I was authorised to say that actors, as represented in British Actors Equity Association supported the development envisaged in the Bill, in other words were in favour of being allowed to perform on Sundays. They have a tradition of being servants to the public and they recognise that society has changed and

that the public now regard Sunday as a day of leisure and as a day on which they would seek normal entertainment if they had the opportunity to do so.
The view, therefore, taken by the Association—and I was, before I became a Member of the House, a member of the delegation which went to the Crathorne Committee on the subject—was that they were in favour of the proposal, but they said to the Crathorne Committee and to me, and I said on Second Reading:
They do not regard that as an imposition upon them
—referring to the requirement to work on Sunday—
but they would require—and the House should make sure that they get—a provision that in the event of work taking place on a Sunday it should be obligatory for actors to have another free day. Such a Clause should be written into the Bill".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 1923.]
In Committee, I felt that perhaps on Second Reading I had confined myself too closely to one section of the community who would be affected by the Bill. When, in Committee, we moved a Clause to give effect to the suggestion made on Second Reading, it was worded to provide that
Any contract of employment which states that an employee shall work on Sundays if so required shall provide for a free day in lieu or alternatively for the payment of double-time rates of pay
Since then an Amendment has been tabled to insert the words "not less than" before "double-time rates of pay." If that Amendment is acceptable to the House, it will be acceptable to me.
It has been suggested that there is something impractical about the Clause. I cannot understand that view. I accept that, generally speaking, the reaction of any Government Department faced with a Private Member's Bill is to try to restrict it as much as possible and to make sure that the impact of the Measure on the Department is minimised. This is the natural reaction of the civil servant. While I can understand it, there is no reason why we should accept it because we are concerned with the establishment of correct principles and not with the administrative inconvenience which sometimes the establishment of those principles


involves. I am, therefore, not persuaded that there is anything impractical or impossible in the administration of the Clause.
The second part of the Clause states:
Provided that no person shall be required by his contract of employment to work on Sundays who establishes that he has a religious or conscientious objection to so doing.
All hon. Members, whatever their religious persuasions, or if they have none, will be in favour of that. We should say in the Bill that a man may be entitled to say, "You cannot ask me to do this because it says in the Act that I may not reasonably be asked to do it". The obvious answer is that if a job necessarily requires work to be done on a Sunday, it will not be open to that individual. This is an unfortunate fact of life, but we need not make the fact harder. Indeed, the Clause would make it easier for the individual to exercise his religious or conscientious objection. I do not share such an objection, but that is no reason why we should not try to provide for somebody who has.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that some major industries require employees to work on Sundays but that workers are permitted to object if they have religious or conscientious reasons for not working on Sundays?

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful for that intervention. The Clause would merely write into the law what is already being done in some places and that would become general. Perhaps it therefore removes in advance any objection which may be raised on that ground by the Government.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that employees with deep religious affiliations might, out of loyalty to their employers—and perhaps out of loyalty to the country in view of the present economic situation—agree to work on Sundays even though it would, to a large extent, be against their religious consciences to do so?

Mr. Jenkins: Nothing in the Clause would prevent such a person from deciding whether or not to work. The Clause provides that he shall not
…be required by his contract of employment to work on Sundays…

if he
…establishes that he has a religious or conscientious objection to so doing.
He may say, "I object to so doing, but I have no objection to this being written into my contract because I feel that, on balance, I will have to do it". How-ever, if he says, "I am not prepared to work on Sundays in any circumstances", his employer will have to strike out that clause from the contract of employment. That is all that the Clause provides and it is a reasonable proposition.
It has been suggested that this matter should be left to the trade unions. As a general principle, the trade union movement at present is having rather less and less left to it. There is a strong tendency for the Government to say that it is the job of the Administration to intervene more and more in questions of industrial relations. Perhaps there is a strong argument for such a proposition. In any event, it does not lie in the mouth of the Government to say, "Where we have intervened, that is right and we support it, but where it might be inconvenient, we will not have it at any price". That is not a tenable proposition and I hope that the Government will not advance it because it will not wash.
There is a long tradition of legislative protection for trade unions. How would the trade unions operate effectively without this framework of legislation, such as the Factories Acts? What would the mineworkers do without the legislation within which they work? The general proposition that trade unions do not need or do not want legislation does not stand up and I hope that it will not be advanced.
All trade unions welcome legislation when it backs them and is in their interests. It is natural that they will resist legislation which is seen to be oppressive to them but as for the general proposition that trade unions do not like legislation as such, no trade union or even Transport House would accept that argument. There is, therefore, no general objection.
Is there a particular objection? I suggest that there is not either a general or a particular objection. Certainly the Crathorne Committee was not so satisfied. After referring to the restriction on the


number of Sundays on which shop-workers may be employed, that Committee's Report said:
The conditions in (27)"—
that is, the clause referring to shop workers:
should apply to a person employed in connection with an entertainment licensed under the Cinematograph Act 1909, the Theatres Act 1843…
In other words, it said what the Clause seeks to do; that the legislative protection which is desirable and which is applied already to shop workers should be made applicable to workers in entertainment.
In resisting the Amendment, I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) said about moving it reluctantly. I suspect that he had something of a pistol at his head and that he found himself in the position of having little alternative but to move an Amendment for which, I suspect, he has little enthusiasm. If the Minister replies, "We have nothing against the principle but we do not like some of the words of the Clause", we might possibly seriously think about the matter. On the other hand, if he says that the Government are opposed to the excellent principles contained in the Clause, we will have to resist any attempt to delete it.

Mr. Hamling: I do not want my hon. Friend to think that I have been subjected to pressure. I have, perhaps, been subject to influence or to advice. I am not a lawyer. On many subjects I am a layman, and that is certainly the case in the drafting of Bills. That being so, one must lean very heavily on professional advice.
Further, as trade unionists, my hon. Friend and I must agree that we seek the least possible intervention of law in trade union matters.

Captain Orr: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) has shown his genial self in this discussion and we are delighted to see it, but I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). It is quite out of character for the hon. Member for Woolwich, West to seek to remove a provision enshrining protection for those who for religious or conscientious reasons do not

want to work on Sundays. It may be that, as the hon. Member for Putney suspects, the advice referred to has come from Government sources, and no doubt the Minister will tell us what they are.
I cannot see why the very simple sentence which comprises the second part of the Clause should be deleted. It may be, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, said, that many of these protections are provided through normal negotiation between worker and employer, but one can well imagine people who are represented by a very weak or small union, or not represented in that way at all, being forced into contracts which do violence to their conscience. The majority in a union might be unwilling to give the necessary protection, and that is another reason why this provision should be written in.
The second part of the Clause does no violence to anything. It is not interference with trade union practice to require it. It does not prevent an employer or a union from doing anything of which we would approve, but it shows that Parliament takes the view that no man should be forced into any kind of contract which does violence to his conscience on religious grounds. Perhaps the Minister can tell us more about the objection to this part of the Clause—I certainly cannot see any.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: If the Bill goes through—and the House knows my views on that score—this Clause is essential. Sport and entertainment is an area of industry in which trade union organisation is weak in any case. The Clause provides that even in this kind of employment there shall be conditions relating to Sunday work. Some of us have fought for what is contained in the first part of the Clause all our lives. I have always done all I could to keep Sunday work to its lowest level, and in all our agreements we have been particularly determined to see that where it is essential it is made as expensive as possible to the employers. We wanted to preserve for ourselves at least one day of the week, and we also wanted to put some penalty on the employer requiring his men to work on Sundays.
The first part of the Clause reads:
'Any contract of employment which states that an employee shall work on Sundays if so


required shall provide for a free day in lieu or alternatively for the payment of double-time rates of pay…
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) says that he has been advised by someone that it is unworkable. Do the Government say that? A lot of trade union agreements contains precisely the same provision in regard to double time, and so on. In addition, spectacles and sports involve special kinds of employment, and there are those who object to them. If men and women have a strong conscientious objection to working on Sunday, are we to be told that it is impracticable to protect for them? I do not believe that it is.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend seeks to remove the Clause. If he gets his Bill—and he knows my view—such a provision is essential because we shall be creating an enormous amount of Sunday employment that does not at present exist. If the Bill is enacted, can we be told how many people will be employed on Sunday who are not now compelled to do so? In all industries, including coal mining, we see the man being pressed to the service of the machine.
What is called the "Continental" week, which includes Sunday, means working cycles of shifts. To do that may be necessary for our economic well-being, but it is a tremendous price for the workers to pay. It will disturb our social life. In some places where there is a cycle of 26 shifts each week it is almost impossible to carry on any organisation because one cannot get the men together. It is a price that we may have to pay, but it is a very heavy price.
There are machines in industry which, if they are not worked continuously for 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, cannot show a proper return on the capital invested—or such is the argument. That sort of employment may be essential in industry, but sport, entertainment and spectacle does not come into that category of employment. I therefore hope that we shall keep the entire Clause.

Mr. Hamling: I hope that my right hon. Friend has read this Clause aright. It does not refer to entertainments and spectacles. The Clause will affect every industry and every service.

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend has a copy of the Bill. Will he look at the rubric? It says:
Employment for the purposes of providing spectacles, etc., referred to in sections two or three".

Mr. Hamling: My right hon. Friend is more experienced in law than I am—

Mr. Griffiths: No, I am not.

Mr. Hamling: He is a former Minister. He will recognise that rubrics have nothing to do with the law.

Mr. Griffiths: Then what is the point of putting these words in? I read the Bill as it is and presumed that the words applied. If they do not apply as stated, they apply generally to industry. If the Clause is not included what protection will the men be given? Are we to rely entirely upon trades unions?
Has this question been put to the Trades Union Congress, or the C.B.I.? If the Clause were omitted would there be any protection other than by trade union agreement? I am not familiar with this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) is much more familiar with it. Nevertheless, I have an impression that many people are employed at football matches and that those employees are not well organised. Since the House is to provide that they shall be employed on Sundays it has a duty to protect them. That is why the Clause is essential.

Mr. Ennals: First, I must point out to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) that it is not a question whether or not we think that people who work on Sundays should be granted a rest day in lieu, or be able to look forward to not less than double pay; the question is whether the provision should be in the Bill in this form. My hon. Friend mentioned the Crathorne Report, but referred only to one part of it. If he will look at paragraph 227 he will see that it says:
The recommendations in Part II"—
dealing with sport—
will also have the effect of increasing slightly the number of persons employed in connection with Sunday sport. They are not at present subject to any statutory conditions of employment and we received no evidence to suggest that statutory conditions could or should be applied to them.


In Committee I said that the Crathorne Report was right and that it would be a difficult thing to define by statutory means what is done either directly or indirectly in consequence of this Bill.
I want to say a word about my relationship with my hon. Friend. It is true that from time to time I have advised him, as I have the House, and during our debates in Committee upstairs I have intervened. Normally the purpose of my advice has been to ensure that when the House or the Committee upstairs votes it knows what it is voting about and what the consequences of its vote will be.
There have been times when I have advised my hon. Friend to accept what seemed to be the general consensus of the House, but it must be recognised that my hon. Friend's main desire is to get his Bill through, and I sympathise with him in his attempt. My desire, and that of the Government, however, is to see that if the Bill gets through it is a workable Bill. Whenever I feel that a Clause is liable to produce difficulties it is my bounden duty to advise the House, and I shall do so.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Is my hon. Friend saying that his advice is always the right advice?

Mr. Ennals: No; I would never have such arrogance as that. I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend when he says that he always thinks that his advice is right. I would not give advice if I did not think it was right, but it is for the House to decide whether or not to accept the advice.
The only advantage that I have is that the advice I give has no copyright, and is an accumulation of the advice of those who have gone deeply into the Bill. This applies to the Ministry of Labour as it was—now the Department of Employment and Productivity—and to the Law Officers. I shall give their advice shortly.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the Minister help those who were not Members of the Committee? Did he give advice to the Committee on this point? If so, why are we discussing the Clause?

Mr. Ennals: I am sorry to have to laugh. I did give advice in Committee, and the Committee was unwise enough

to reject the advice both of myself and my hon. Friend the sponsor. The Committee did so in its wisdom. It was a small Committee, and we are a large House. I am pointing out the lack of wisdom of the Committee in including the Clause. It was a lack of wisdom, not a lack of foresight.
As has been said, the Clause is open to objections both in principle and in drafting, and I shall go into those objections in detail. In this connection the deficiencies of drafting are not technicalities to be put right with the aid of skilled draftsmen; they are not the sort of thing in respect of which we can say, "We can pass this, and perhaps in another place the defects can be remedied."
First, the Clause does not relate to the Bill. I pointed this out in Committee, when I said that the side note could not be construed by the courts as being part of the Clause and, secondly, that the Clause related to the whole field of employment whether or not it had anything to do with the activities referred to in the Bill. That advice is from the highest legal circles, and it must be accepted that the inclusion of the words in the side note cannot be accepted by a court as part of the Clause.

Mr. James Griffiths: If that is the case a simple Amendment can be made in another place. After the words "Any contract of employment" there can be inserted the words
for the purposes of providing spectacles".
If the Clause is amended in that way it will apply only to the purposes for which the Bill was introduced.

Mr. Ennals: Even if we accepted what my right hon. Friend has put forward there are other cogent arguments against including it. For instance, it would be wrong, or illogical, to make special provision for people who happen to be working because of the provisions of the Bill, and put them in a different position from that of persons who are working for some other reason. To draw a dividing line between those without statutory protection and those with it would be extremely difficult.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I suspect that my hon. Friend has been wrongly advised on this point. No Clause is allowed by


the Parliamentary draftsmen or Mr. Speaker to go into a Bill unless it is within the terms of the Long Title. The Clauses within the Bill are limited to the terms of the Long Title.

Mr. Ennals: If my hon. Friend is saying that Mr. Speaker was out of order it is for him to raise the point with Mr. Speaker.
It will also be recognised that the Clause was injected in Committee; it was not drafted by Parliamentary draftsmen. As I understand it, it was drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney. It was accepted in Committee against advice, including the legal advice of the spokesman for the Government, namely, myself.
My advice now is the same advice that I put before the Committee—and now the matter has been gone into carefully, not only by those involved in the Department of Employment and Productivity but also by the Law Officers.

2.0 p.m.

Secondly, the Clause runs contrary to the present pattern of the Bill. The operative Clauses—Clauses 2 and 3—prohibit certain activities at certain times, while leaving them, subject to any limitations as a result of a clause which was accepted last Friday, free and lawful at other times. Contravention of the provisions constitutes a criminal offence. The Clause, except in the proviso, contains no prohibition at all. It creates no offence on which a prosecution could properly be founded. It does little more than state a broad principle. It may be, as think, a worthy principle, but it is a broad principle, and the purpose of Acts of Parliament is not to state broad principles but to state clearly and unambiguously what may or may not be done and to provide for the enforcement of any prohibitions. The Bill, which is to become part of the criminal law, contains a provision which, if appropriate to legislation at all, would be appropriate to legislation concerning civil law.

Captain Orr: The Clause would render null and void any contract of employment which did not contain certain things.

Mr. Ennals: The Clause seeks to interfere with the ordinary law of contracts

of service. The hon. Gentleman leads me on to a point. The law of contract is basically very simple and consists of three propositions—that people should be free to make all the contracts they like; that, having made them, they should abide by them; and that, if a party does not abide by a contract, the other party to the contract should be free of it, if he wishes. If we are to interfere with any of these principles, we must set about it with great care, because we shall be interfering with a matter with which of its nature lies wholly between one person and another and so falls to the civil courts to enforce if, but only if, proceedings are brought by a party to the contract.

Captain Orr: There are any amount of contracts which cannot be entered into in that simple way and which contain provisions taken from Statutes preventing certain aspects of them from being against the public interest.

Mr. Ennals: There are any amount of contracts. The Clause applies to
Any contract of employment which states that an employee shall work on Sunday if so required".
The vast majority of contracts of employment are silent on this matter; they do not refer to the question whether a person shall work on Sunday. Does the Clause apply to an ordinary typist? Typists do not generally work on Sunday. If one wants her to do so on a special occasion, one asks her if she is prepared to do so. If she says that she is, does the case fall within the Clause? No one could say with any confidence if the Clause were included, but is she entitled to a day off in lieu or to double pay? If so, who is to say which, whether it is to be one or the other? If she is to receive double time rates for her Sunday work, what is the rate which is to be doubled, bearing in mind that she is paid by the week? If we are to write this into our legislation, these are matters which must be taken into consideration.

Mr. Spriggs: In view of the many Bills which are passed, in view of the many promises made by Ministers, in view of the many statements made by back bench Members about Bills, and as the courts often interpret Bills in a completely different way from that which was understood from a


Minister's undertakings, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that, if the Clause remains in the Bill, the rubric will be retained so that the courts, if they are called upon to interpret the Clause, will take it to refer only to Clauses 2 and 3, as set out in the margin?

Mr. Ennals: I could not give any such assurance. Even if I were to seek to do so, it would have no validity in the courts. It has been said today that assurances are given in the House and the courts interpret them differently. This is something we must be careful about. My advice is that whatever assurances a Minister were to give to the effect that a Clause means this rather than something else would have no validity in the courts. We are not passing a Front Bench speech. We are passing a Clause. When passing a Clause, it is important to ensure that it will stand up to every examination by the courts without their having to refer back to a Report stage in the House of Commons. We are passing legislation. We must be responsible about it.

Sir Knox Cunningham: This is an important point. The Minister is arguing about a contract between two individuals. Does he not agree that the whole tendency in the House has been to impose limitations on contracts between individuals? There is nothing wrong with that in particular cases. There is nothing wrong with it if we are to protect the individual from working on Sunday against his conscience.

Mr. Ennals: This is a matter for debate. An earlier exchange concerned the question whether it is a good thing increasingly to provide statutory protection, or whether it is best to leave these matters to normal negotiation between trade unions and employers.
It seems from the rubric, in which there has been some interest, that the Clause is intended to be limited to employment stemming from the activities mentioned in Clauses 2 and 3, though there is nothing in the Clause so to limit it. Even if the Clause were so limited, this would create new difficulties. Is a policeman, a doctor, or a nurse, whose attendance is required at a Sunday entertainment, within the Clause? If so, why should the policeman in the football

ground qualify and not the policeman directing the traffic outside? If both are qualified, why not the coach driver who brings the spectators?
An attempt has been made to persuade me to say that the purposes of the Clause are limited to those involved in employment, because of the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3. If we adhere to that, we immediately create a dividing line between a policeman who is on duty that day because of a spectacle or sporting activity under the Clause and another policeman who may be on point duty for quite different reasons. One may be on double time and the other not. One may have a day off in lieu and the other may not have a day off in lieu. I submit that either to write into a Bill a provision that is all-embracing or to write into a Bill a provision that creates divisions between those who are in employment because of the provisions of the Bill and those who are in employment without the provisions of the Bill is not logical.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is concerned about the conscience point of the Clause. There are two objections here. First, it is not a proviso at all. A proviso is a provision which makes some exception to what has gone before. There is nothing in the Clause saying that someone who makes a bargain should keep to it. It is the ordinary law that says that. Therefore, it is not a proviso to the Clause to say that a person who makes a contract need not honour it on Sundays if he has religious or conscientious objections to doing so.
Quite why and on what principle a person who makes a contract should be excused from performing it the Clause does not make clear. Many privileges have been given by the law—for example, to trade unions—qua contracts. But no one has ever suggested that these privileges should extend to absolving a striker—even a one-day striker—from the consequences of his strike, however conscientious his motives.
No one can be compelled to perform a contract of employment. If a man chooses not to perform it, or not to perform it on Sundays, the other party has certain rights in the matter, of which the most fundamental is the right to say, "If you will not honour your side of the contract, I shall not honour mine."

Captain Orr: But what is said here is not concerned with performance of the contract. It is directed to what can be contained in the contract—
…no person shall be required by his contract of employment to work on Sundays who establishes that he has…
and so on.
The Under-Secretary of State said that it was not a proviso. Very well. Let us leave out the first two words, "Provided that", so that it reads, "No person shall be required…". Can he see any objection to that?

Mr. Ennals: I should have to give some thought to a different form of words. On my feet at this moment, I should not like to commit myself to a form of words. In any case, it would be for my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) to take responsibility for that.
If a person objects to working on Sundays, he has the remedy in his own hands. If he finds it difficult to secure employment of the kind and on the conditions he wants, there is nothing in the Clause to assist him. No one is obliged to engage a man who is not willing to do what the employer wants him to do. There is nothing in the Clause to alter that, and neither could there be. If a man contracts to work on Sundays—whether or not on other days also—he must work on Sundays or risk being dismissed.
The problem of unjust dismissal cannot be looked at in the isolated context of Sunday work, let alone the isolated context of this Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West said, the question of unjust dismissal is one of the general problems now being considered by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.

Mr. James Griffiths: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's argument. I do not agree with it and, if there were time, I could shatter it. But I put this point to him now. By this Bill, we shall provide that work may be done on a Sunday which is not legal now. It will be a new situation. As we are deciding that work shall be done on a Sunday which is not legal now, the House of Commons has a responsibility to ensure

that those who are so compelled are protected.

Mr. Ennals: I submit to my right hon. Friend that the person who may be obliged to work on a Sunday if the Bill becomes an Act is in no way different from the person who may be obliged to work on Sunday for quite different reasons. There is a whole range of people—the milkman, the power station worker and the rest—who are required by the very nature of our society to work on Sundays. It is true that the Bill will slightly—I say slightly—broaden the range of people who will be involved in work on a Sunday. It will sometimes call for some extra policemen or some extra transport workers. But I can see no argument for distinguishing a certain category of persons working on Sundays because of what might flow from the Bill rather than the broader category of persons who in any case, for quite different reasons, work on Sunday.
I have said that it would be extremely difficult to draw the line between the person who will work on Sunday in consequence of the Bill and the other person who works on Sunday for reasons unconnected with the Bill.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Most workers who work on Sundays now have either double time or a day off in lieu. This happens now. Nothing more is asked.

Mr. Ennals: Of course it happens now, but it is not done by Statute. It is not written into an Act of Parliament. It is the result of proper negotiation. These are matters for negotiation by the normal negotiating machinery.

2.15 p.m.

Sir C. Black: There is all the difference in the world between the two categories. The man who works on Sunday now took up his employment knowing that, by the nature of his employment, he would have to work on Sundays. He accepted that requirement when he took the job. On the other hand, to take two classes, the actor or professional footballer follows a calling in which, as he knew when he went into it and has known until now, he would not be required to work on Sunday because the law made it illegal. We shall now impose on him, in the mid-stream of his


career, a duty which he could never have foreseen when he entered upon it.

Mr. Ennals: That would apply to a number of categories, I agree. It might apply to those involved in certain types of sport which could now take place but hitherto could not. But there is a whole range of other categories of worker—I have instanced the policeman and the transport worker—who may be called upon to work, so it is said, as a result of the Bill but who equally expected to have to work on Sunday in any case. The nature of their work is such that they are from time to time required to put in duty on a Sunday.

Mr. Wilkins: My hon. Friend is under an illusion here. I take the example of the police. Wherever there are sporting events calling for extra policemen, in nearly all cases they are off-duty policemen who are invited to come in to do a tour of duty, for which they are paid. The same would apply to bus drivers and the like. It may be their normal day off, but, because some spectacle is staged which requires a good deal of additional transport or other services, these people are invited to come back to work.
The whole essence of trade union negotiation and agreement about Sunday working is that there shall be a sanction put upon the employer who causes a man to come in to work on the Sabbath day. This applies throughout the trade union movement. The separate categories to which my hon. Friend has referred cannot be invoked as a reason for deleting the Clause.

Mr. Ennals: It seems to me that my hon. Friend is arguing my case.

Mr. Wilkins: We think that my hon. Friend is arguing ours.

Mr. Ennals: If there is a Division, hon. Members will have to decide which Lobby they go into. It is true that, when employers bring people in to work on Sunday, there are usually contracts of employment laying down certain conditions in terms of extra payment or time off. This will apply just as much to transport workers driving buses to take people to a cricket match as to others driving buses simply as part of the ordinary Sunday services. One cannot say that one group of people are

working because of something passed in an Act of Parliament. I do not accept for a moment that that could be so. The provisions which hon. Members wish to write into the Bill will emerge as a result of the normal contracts negotiated between employers and workers just as they have emerged over our history.
The last point of difficulty which I raise is, again, directed to the conscience clause. Many people would have some sympathy with this provision, at first sight. As I said in Committee, I have some personal sympathy with the motives behind both parts of Clause 4, and my hon. Friend the sponsor of the Bill said the same. But as responsible Members passing legislation we must look beyond the feelings of our own hearts and at the effect of Clauses.
When one looks at the Clause closely one sees that it is a non-starter. It is difficult to see how such cases could be brought before the ordinary courts, and we should probably need nothing short of tribunals similar to those which were set up to decide whether people who objected to military service had a conscientious objection. To try to write such conscientious objections into a Bill to which criminal penalties are attached would be irresponsible.
Therefore, whilst understanding the motives of those who brought the Clause into the Bill, hope that they will accept its deletion.

Mr. Peter Mills: We hear a lot of nonsense in the House from time to time, and we heard a great deal from the Minister. I found his speech most unconvincing. I believe that many people do mind working on Sundays. There are times when one must, and I have to do it myself—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but if they came down to Yendon farm, Ashwater, every Sunday they would see me in my dungarees and working gear feeding the stock and the pigs. I am a practical working farmer, which is a lot more than other people on either side of the House can say.

Mr. Ennals: I am not a practical working farmer, but would not the hon. Gentleman agree that if he were not prepared to do the work which he undertakes on a Sunday he would not have become a farmer?

Mr. Mills: That may well be so. I was not getting at the Minister but at hon. Members who were laughing at the fact that an hon. Member does practical work.
There are times when one must work on Sundays, but on my farm we do not make work. We do not do things just for the sake of doing them, but cut everything to the minimum so that my men can enjoy a day's rest. If they wish, they can go to church. If we deleted the Clause it would be permissible to make people to do more work on a Sunday, and I am opposed to that. We want only to do the essential things on a Sunday and not to force other people to work as well. I feel strongly about this.
We come to the question of double pay. If people must work on Sundays they should receive double pay for that extra burden. I have received a letter from a Devon policeman which sums up what I am trying to say and puts the view of the police very strongly. I did not ask him to write it. The letter says:
Writing as a police officer, I can see that we shall in the police be required for crowd control at all Sunday sporting sessions. Why should we have to be deprived of resting with our families on Sundays? We shall already have been away from them on the previous day's sport and through other necessary duties. This is unnecessary work for the police. The spectators do not care. They can shout their heads off and throw bottles, fight and cause scenes. Surely, having experienced this on a Saturday, the police to a large extent should be able to look forward to some rest on Sunday and to be quiet. After all, the type of work during the other six days is such that most of us are glad to get home and shut the door on it all. We shall not even be paid doubly for our extra labours. We shall be ordered to be there, and that's that.
Politicians might think they are popular by going with the crowd, and even doing this sort of thing, by doing away with Sunday as a national day of rest. One day, perhaps, they will regret it.
Those are the simple words of a constable.
The Minister has disappeared—

Mr. J. D. Concannon: My hon. Friend has been called out to take a very urgent telephone message. He will be back fairly shortly.

Mr. Mills: I accept that, of course. For a horrible moment I thought that my words had driven him out of the Chamber.
There are many other classes of people who must work on Sundays, and I do not see why we should impose an extra burden. I fear very much for the person providing services at one of the big Sunday entertainments. One can imagine what will happen to waiters or waitresses if they tell their employer, "I am sorry, I will not work on Sunday. I have never done it here before." He will reply, "You have to work. This is your job." For many such people it is not easy to find jobs if they are given the sack because they object to working on a Sunday.
These are important matters. I assure the Minister, who has returned from his urgent telephone call, that the police are concerned. They have enough to do during the week. They have enough trouble looking after some of the unruly crowds at football matches, and so on. There will be very strong resentment if they are forced to do even more without getting double pay.
I have to work on Sundays, because livestock cannot be left unattended. I have never forced any of my men to work on a Sunday if they feel that they cannot; I have done the job myself. It would be absolutely wrong to force people to work on Sundays. Very strong pressure will be brought to bear on people in all sorts of jobs to do so. I hope that the Minister will at least bear in mind the letter from a policeman which I read.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) seemed to take exception when some of us laughed at him when he said that he must work on Sundays. We thought that he was going to talk about his constituency employment and not his other work. Most of us work on Sundays doing our constituency work as well. When he said that he must feed the stock we wondered at first what the stock did the rest of the week. Then he said that he was letting his men off. I hope that when they have to stay they get double pay on Sundays.
I support the inclusion of the Clause, because every time constituents wrote to me expressing concern about the Bill I said that I would support it on two conditions. First, there should be adequate protection for any person who felt


on conscientious grounds that he or she would not work on a Sunday. Second, that there should be proper provision and protection for people who do not have any religious objection to working on a Sunday in the way of double pay and a day off in lieu. That is what the Clause seeks to do.
In arguing for the exclusion of the Clause, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that there were objections on technical grounds and to the principle behind it, although he was inclined to agree with it. That seems to be a dangerous argument. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) made a very powerful point when he said that people would be made to work on a Sunday when before it had been illegal and, therefore, that there is a distinction between them and anyone else.
Listening to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend, one would think that we were still in the nineteenth century, when any State intervention in industrial relations was considered to be wrong. We cannot argue consistently that one sort of intervention is right and another sort wrong, and, by throwing up all sorts of strange guys to knock down himself, the Minister did himself a disservice.
Any transport worker, for example, knows when he is put on to work to take a crowd to or from a local football match and when he is dealing with an ordinary Saturday afternoon shopping crowd. In the same way, he will know on a Sunday when he is put on to work to take people to or from a sporting event and when he is dealing with an ordinary Sunday crowd.
We have a situation here in which we are proposing to call upon individuals to surrender the weekends that they would like to spend at home with their families, and, whether or not they have religious objections, they should be compensated. Sunday is not the same as any other day of the week, and to give a man a weekday off in lieu is not good enough.
People working on the periphery of the entertainment industry are generally covered by works councils. By definition, they include some of the lowest paid and badly organised people in industry. It is no good our saying that theirs is a

case for negotiation. We as a House have a duty to see that they are protected.
My hon. Friend said that he wanted a workable Bill, and that there were drafting objections to the Clause. However, his Department could easily surmount those objections if it was prepared to do so, and suitable Amendments could be introduced in the other place. There is no point in saying that something suitable could not be introduced in another place because it would not stand up to criticism. He knows that it could be done, and it should be done if we intend to impose any extra burden on people.
As a result, without the undertaking that we seek from the Government Front Bench, regretfully, I cannot accept the deletion of this Clause from the Bill.

2.30 p.m.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Arising out of what the Minister has said, there are three points that I wish to make. As I understand it, his first point of criticism of Clause 4 is that it is much too wide and would cover a great number of other forms of employment. If that is so, it could be limited by inserting, after the words "any contract of employment", the phrase
arising out of the terms of this Act".
Those may not be the right words, but the hon. Gentleman has legal advisers who will be able to find suitable phraseology and, in that way, limit the provision to the terms of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman's second point was that a great number of people work on Sunday already and receive higher rates of pay for it which are arrived at by negotiation and, as I understand his argument, we should not, therefore, make it statutory. However, we are making something legal which has been illegal until now, and I see no reason why an employer should not be compelled in the Bill to have to pay extra money for Sunday work.
The third and possibly most important of all was his point about it being a conscience clause. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman said that he had sympathy with it, and he went almost as far as saying that he agreed with it in principle. He added, however, that it would be impracticable to work and quoted the wartime example of the tribunals for conscientious objectors.
If people have a religious objection to working on Sundays, surely that is a good case for setting up such tribunals. It may be that only a few people will be involved, but Parliament has always been anxious to protect people from being forced to do something against their consciences.

Mr. McNamara: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, could he give the House some information? In the Amendments to the Race Relations Bill which have been tabled by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions always ought to be brief, but they must have something to do with what we are discussing.

Mr. McNamara: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it has. Those Amendments include religious discrimination and, as a member of the legal profession, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can say—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even in an intervention, we cannot discuss the Race Relations Bill. We are discussing whether Clause 4 should be in this Bill.

Mr. Peter Mahon: I listened with rapt attention to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who, for a large part of his speech, spoke against a background of dissent from both sides of the House. Nevertheless, he spoke honestly and in a straightforward manner in pinpointing many of the difficulties implicit in the Bill. I feel that we will disregard much of his advice at our peril.
Undoubtedly, a lot of what he said was unpalatable to hon. Members on both sides, but the truth hurts on occasions, and he was pointing to many of the weaknesses in the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not concerned with weaknesses in the Bill. We are concerned with the weaknesses or excellence in Clause 4.

Mr. Mahon: Yes, and that is the matter about which I wish to speak.
My hon. Friend referred a great deal to double pay for Sunday work, but man does not live by bread alone, and, even if he received treble pay, it would

not compensate him for the loss of a Sunday's rest.
We are discussing whether this Clause should be in the Bill. Sport and other entertainments of different kinds on Sundays inevitably involve people having to work. As a result, an unendurable strain will be placed on them. It will not benefit the country in any shape or form and it will certainly not enhance our economic advance. Very often sports people, athletes and players, in the course of earning their daily bread, are taxed beyond endurance. There are certain employers who, in their endeavour to bolster up entertainment and sport, never fail to hold inducements before the people who are to participate. Sport and entertainment in this country seems to be becoming a religion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We can discuss sport and entertainment in some other debate, not this one. This debate is concerned with whether workers who work on a Sunday shall get double pay and shall have a conscientious right not to work on a Sunday. The hon. Member must address himself to the Clause.

Mr. Mahon: I am trying very hard indeed. I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that you would bear with me, because people who participate in professional sports are workers in the real sense of the word, whether they are being paid normal time, double time, or any extra inducement. With respect, we cannot conduct this debate on a narrow aspect.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We can conduct a debate only on what we are debating. This is not a question of narrowness.

Mr. Mahon: The Clause is concerned with whether a person does or does not work on a Sunday and whether, if he does, he is paid double time.

Mr. Dempsey: Or whether he has any conscientious objection to working on a Sunday.

Mr. Mahon: Unfortunately, there are many implications. I hope I shall not be ruled out of order, but one of the big implications is that of conscience. This concerns many people. People of all shades of opinion, naturally enough, want to fill in their time. They can please themselves whether they stay at home, work, or attend a sporting event


on a Sunday. Many people call upon workers for more than they are capable of giving.
People who participate in entertainment are human beings—they are flesh and blood—but those who do not participate in sport often ask them for endeavours beyond their endurance. I am concerned about the professional foot-baller who is on call for six days a week. If the Bill becomes law, he will be on call seven days a week.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a matter which can be gone into on Third Reading. For the moment, we are deciding whether a Clause, which would give workers called upon to work on Sunday double pay and reserving to them the conscientious right not to work on a Sunday, should be put into the Bill. This is what we are debating at this moment.

Mr. Mahon: Unfortunately, I followed in the same trend as many other hon. Members who have spoken during your absence, Mr. Speaker, and I am ranging wide of the mark. I am now under your jurisdiction and I will conform. How-ever, the point which you have outlined so admirably and succinctly is what has been worrying me. I feel that the trade unions have a right to be concerned and the Minister has a right to be concerned about what sort of place it will take in the Bill, because he is responsible for the drafting and working of it, according to the advice which he receives from his advisers. I understand his perturbation in the matter. I had great fellow-feeling for him when he was trying to convince the House that this was something we should not overlook.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) because of his great sincerity in this matter. I would only differ from him on one point. He said that he listened to the Minister with rapt attention. I confess that I did not listen to the Minister with rapt attention. I listened somewhat sorrowfully, because he put the Government's point of view more or less in direct contradiction to everything that the Labour movement stands for. We are discussing Sunday, and Sunday preserves the distinctive character of the

day. Not only that, it preserves the workers' day of rest.

Mr. Ennals: I am disturbed to hear my hon. Friend say this. Is he aware—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should address the Chair or the reporters will not hear him.

Mr. Ennals: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) aware that if this Clause were to remain it would immediately affect many agreements reached with industry concerning Sunday work? I have been reminded, during the course of the day, of the Bevercotes agreement in the mining industry, which makes a 7-day week obligatory on a rotation system. This would immediately be covered if the Clause remained in the Bill. Therefore, what I was saying was not in direct contradiction with the Labour movement.

Mr. Lewis: I am anxious that it should be written into the Bill, not only to protect those who will have to work on a Sunday, but those who are already doing it, assuming, God forbid, that the Bill becomes law.
I speak from personal experience. Before I came to this House I was an employee of British Railways. As hon. Members on both sides know, a certain amount of work must be done on a Sunday in that industry. I was employed in the sheds repairing locomotives that had to be on the road on Monday morning. That inevitably meant a certain amount of Sunday work. However, when we worked on a Sunday, we had extra compensation in the shape of double time. That is precisely what I want to see written into the Bill.
The Minister is nodding his head, yet he spoke to the opposite effect from the brief prepared for him by the Home Office.

Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend misunderstands. I was saying "Hear, hear" because it is of vital importance that workers who work on Sunday should get double time or days off in lieu—whatever is negotiated. It is inappropriate that the range of workers to whom my hon. Friend is referring should be included and covered in a Sunday Entertainments Bill.

Mr. Lewis: With all due respect to my hon. Friend, he must be a little more consistent, if he accepts everything that we and hon. Members opposite have been saying about the Clause, he should accept it in its entirety and not ask for it to be thrown out.
This is a bad Bill. If the Bill is passed without this Amendment it will be a worse Bill. We are seeking certain safeguards, namely, that those who have to work on Sunday shall be compensated and that those who do not wish to work on Sunday shall have the right not to do so. There is a minority who still look upon Sunday as a day of rest and will not work on that day under any circumstances. If we in this House attempt to steamroller this Clause, I suggest that shame will come upon all those associated with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and I have a lot in common. We have fought General Elections since 1945, and got here in 1964. I pay my tribute to him. I disagree with the Bill, but I hope that my hon. Friend will see the logic of our arguments and agree not to delete the Clause.

Mr. Farr: I share the concern expresses by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) who said that before he came to the House he used to necessary to enable British Railways maintenance sheds. If the Bill becomes law, much more Sunday work will be necessary or to enable British Railways to run excursion trains for the numerous sporting events, which are likely to be held.
Is the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) aware of the number of additional people who are likely to be affected and have to work on Sunday if the Bill becomes law? Constructive speeches have been made from both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) referred to the letter which he had received from a police constable in Plymouth. He went on to talk about the agriculture industry, and how those who work in it try to master Sunday work. My hon. Friend is right, because work of a certain kind has to be done on Sundays. It is not possible to tell the stock to wait until Monday or to give

them double rations on Saturday. At harvest time, if there are a number of wet days in succession, it is necessary to work on Sunday if it happens to be fine. When spraying is done in the spring, it is often essential to do it on a Sunday. People in the industry are not compelled to work on a Sunday, but they do so if necessary.
My hon. Friend also referred to the possibility of many more people having to work on a Sunday if professional football is played, but he omitted to refer to the extra people who will be required to man public transport services. I am not thinking only of British Railways. Many major town and city football clubs are situated near the centres of cities. With car parking space at a premium, public transport services will be called into use to provide facilities for customers to go to and return from the matches.
My hon. Friend talked about people employed in cafes near football grounds, and about them being required to work on Sunday, but what about catering staffs at the racecourses? The hon. Member for Woolwich, West, is probably not aware that no fewer than 20 people are employed for every horse that races. There is the trainer's staff, the bookies' staffs, the racecourse staff, the totalisator staff, and other officials. If there are 50 runners on a card—which is not a large card—at least 1,000 people are involved.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. If the Bill becomes law, racing will still not take place. The Bill does not propose to alter the laws on gambling, which say explicitly that betting on Sunday is prohibited.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, but what I have suggested may be the next stage. There is no reason why a race meeting should not take place on a Sunday, with an admission fee being charged, and ante-post betting taking place the day before. That may be a profiable consideration. The Minister shakes his head. He had better discuss the matter with the former Paymaster-General. He might then learn something about the industry. To produce a race card of 50 runners requires the active participation of about 1,000 people.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will now come to the proposal before the House, which is whether the Clause should stay in the Bill or not.

Mr. Farr: I have put forward my arguments to show that people who are required to work on Sundays in the pursuit of their jobs should be paid at least double time. There may be a case for paying treble time, or for augmenting their pay still further.

Mr. Wilkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Ham-ling) is asking us to delete a Clause which he thought was necessary when he prepared the Bill.

Mr. Hamling: No.

Mr. Wilkins: If it was added in Committee, my hon. Friend must have accepted it.

Mr. Hamling: No, I did not.

Mr. Wilkins: Was it added by a majority decision of the Committee?

Mr. Hamling: Yes.

Mr. Wilkins: We are beginning to see the light. Because it was added by a majority of the Committee, my hon. Friend seeks to have it deleted by the strength of support which he can muster in the House today. That is what it comes to, but that is not my main reason for intervening.
It has become clear this afternoon that my hon. Friend is seeking to delete the Clause because, for some reason of which only it is aware, the Home Office has discovered a reason why it should not be in the Bill. Perhaps I am doing an injustice to the Home Office. Perhaps it is the "Minister for Sport", who has been muttering all sorts of objectionable remarks because we dare to challenge whether there should be Sunday sport, who wants it deleted. What vested interest does he want to serve? There has not been nearly enough frankness about the Bill. What vested interests are concerned? We ought to be told who wants the Clause deleted to protect them from having to pay for employing men on the Sabbath.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am sure my hon. Friend will take it from me that neither the Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department nor I object to this Clause in any way on the ground that double time ought not to be paid. We are advised by the Department of State responsible for employment matters that the Clause should be taken out. This is not a position which we are taking up, certainly not one I am taking up, on the grounds of sport.

Mr. Wilkins: I hope that this will be one of the times when Parliament asserts its authority and that we shall not be told by some so-called responsible Department what the House is to do. This is a Private Member's Bill.
3.0 p.m.
The reason I want the Clause to remain in the Bill is not that I necessarily support the terms in which it is written. It is not nearly protective enough for the workers. The proposal would enable a few selfish individuals to indulge in entertainment on Sundays, but there are two parties concerned. There are those who demand that there shall be Sunday entertainment and the other reason for the proposal is mercenary. It cannot be any other. The Rugby League wants football to be played on Sundays because it cannot draw crowds to matches on Saturdays. The British people are asked to give up the Sabbath Day in order that clubs can get more money from matches played on Sundays.
I am absolutely astounded at my colleagues on the Front Bench. They are supposed to be trade unionists, yet they try to persuade the House to do something which is in complete violation of everything—

Mr. Spriggs: Mr. Spriggs rose—

Mr. Wilkins: Do not stop me when I am in steam. [Laughter.] It may be that to some hon. Members this matter appears to be a funny one, but it is not funny to me. I have been in my trade union since 1919. We fought to get double time for work on Sundays. Government Departments and local authorities write into contracts that there must be fair conditions similar to those provided by the best employers. If we were to ensure that in this Bill we would say in this Clause, not only that double time


should be paid for work on Sundays, but that there should be a day off in lieu. Hon. Members opposite are prepared to help us, but we on this side of the House should insist on this provision in the Bill. I hope that if we can get the Clause retained in the Bill we shall see to it that it applies to the professional footballer, even though he gets £100 per match.
I want the widest possible sanctions to be imposed on employers who want Sunday entertainment. The only alternative to the highest sanctions is the lowest sanctions. That would mean regarding every day in the week as the same. We would be saying that anyone who worked on a Sunday would receive the same as if he worked on any other day. There would then be a revolt of the workers for they would refuse to work on the Sabbath. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) has a lot more sense than those who are trying to persuade him and trying to organise the passage of his Bill. That is where the advice is coming from, the Front Bench.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even with steam, the hon. Member must address the hon. Gentleman through the Chair.

Mr. Wilkins: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was at that moment simply turning to my hon. Friend to ask him to use his judgment and to withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I listened with great interest and admiration to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins). Although I cannot claim to be a trade unionist I claim to have done what I could in a small way to promote the interests of the working man. That is why I support this Amendment.
It is very unfair that anyone should have to work on a Sunday if he works for the rest of the week or even for five days in the rest of the week. There are times when, on a farm, one has to work on a Sunday because there are questions of necessity and of mercy in dealing with animals. It should be our aim to keep work on Sundays to the very minimum. I am glad to hear that that is exactly what hon. Members on this side have been doing on their farms. It is often

good policy to let the worker away on a Sunday and to do the work ourselves.
The question of the conscience clause is very important. It would be greatly to the detriment of British society that anybody should be asked or forced to work on the Lord's Day. It would be grossly unfair that a man's job should be put in jeopardy if he refused to work on the Sabbath. This is one of the reasons why as a supporter of the working man, I support the Amendment.
The nation has upheld the church, and still does, though not quite to the same extent as it did. It is evident that the Church cannot function without the Sabbath. If we are to allow all sorts of sports and entertainments to draw vast crowds to watch spectacles on Sundays, it will detract from the interests of the Church and the church-going community. The case for the Amendment is over-whelming.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I hope that the House will forgive me for not being in my place during the middle of the day. The Clause has a great bearing upon the balance of the Bill. I take it that the contract of employment referred to in the first line of the Clause refers only to a contract caused by the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If it does not, it bears out my worst fears. Any Bill without a Clause of this type would be unacceptable to me.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) comes from Scotland. There are other Members present who come from Wales. One of the major difficulties about the Bill is that people from different regions must view the Bill, and the Clause in in particular, very differently. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), who spoke with considerable feeling about people who would automatically be employed on a Sunday, accurately pin-pointed one of the difficulties.
In the permissive society in which we live, it becomes increasingly difficult for men and women of good will to keep a balance. There are great dangers that it can go too far. The hon. Member for Bristol, South has long experience of trade union work and, with his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), who has worked on the railways, he reminded the House that anyone


working in transport would be very much affected by the Bill. The numbers driving trains and driving buses on Sundays might be considerably increased. Nor should we forget that the police, the ambulance and Red Cross services would be involved. Fond as I am, therefore, of various sports, both as a performer and as a watcher, I feel that that is an aspect of the Bill which we must not forget.
Two points of importance have arisen. The first is whether someone employed on a Sunday, as a result of the extra entertainment provided, should have a day free in lieu or double rate of pay. The second point concerns conscientious objection. I will not follow the second argument, for every hon. Member, and possibly almost everyone in the country, has a different type of conscientious objection. Whatever one may think about the purpose of Sunday, one cannot help being influenced by one's upbringing, by one's church or chapel, or by many other influences which one feels during one's life.
All of us have different views, sometimes depending on the part of the world in which we live. Speaking to an earlier Amendment, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones) referred to the difference in the time of church services in Wales from those in other parts of the country, and he was quite right. That shows how difficult it is to produce legislation which will please everybody. Like other hon. Members who have prepared or supported Private Members' Bills in the past, the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) is a very brave man.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That goes beyond the scope of the debate on the Amendment.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I fully accept that. I was saying that the two points within the ambit of the Clause impinge in a different way on various members of the community and, therefore, that any hon. Member who is brave enough to produce a Bill of this sort will realise that he must offend some people.
3.15 p.m.
How far could this Bill go in extending Sunday employment? Is it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) suggested, a first step to other

things? I regret that I have not been in my place throughout the debate, but I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary could have said more about the advice which the Front Bench opposite has received from a certain Department of State. I take it that the Department in question is the Ministry of Employment and Productivity. Considering the implications of the Clause, I would have thought that a representative of that Ministry should have been here. We have excellent representatives of the Home Office and the "Ministry of Sport", and although this is a Friday, it is regrettable that a representative of the Ministry of Employment and Productivity is not here to state the facts and tell us what is in the Department's mind.
Many more people will be working on Sundays as a result of this Measure; not just those who are taking part in sport but those involved in the ancillary services connected with it. Obviously, a Clause of this sort is necessary as a safeguard, although its wording may have to be amended in another place. Because the question of double-time rates of pay and conscientious objection must be considered in the Bill, I cannot support the Amendment.

Mr. Dempsey: I paid close attention to the Minister's remarks about the non-inclusion of the Clause in the Bill and I rise because of my concern about compensation for Sunday work and the need to protect conscientiously held views.
I am surprised at the advice that has been given to the Minister. I appreciate his intimation of the advice having been received from the appropriate Department, but I am surprised that the same Department objects to this type of provision being in the Bill. After all, that Department is responsible for many Statutory Instruments to protect workers who are unrecognised, and particularly those employed in the distributive trades. I see no reason, therefore, why similar provisions should not be included in the Bill. The principle of the Bill is wrong—I have always been against the commercialisation of Sunday—but if, unfortunately, the Bill is enacted, protection, assistance and compensation should be provided for those concerned.
I have heard it said that football matches bring in elements of employment, but another sport that brings large crowds into an area is speedway racing. My hon. Friend must know of the dozens of stalls set up at these meetings for the sale of food, and the like, to teenagers and others. If that sort of sport is introduced on Sundays it means that hundreds of people will be compelled to work in that way—quite apart from the police who will have to be on duty, the first-aid people, doctors, nurses, and all the rest. It therefore seems reasonable that if Parliament passes a Bill of this nature it should also give people some protection against exploitation.
I have in mind workpeople who are not very well organised—in some trades, most of them are not organised at all—and if they do not have protection in regard to Sunday work—

Mr. Hamling: Does my hon. Friend think that the steel workers need this kind of protection written into a Statute?

Mr. Dempsey: There should be statutory protection for those people, in particular, who are not organised. I have experience of the unorganised section of the population—

Mr. Hamling: I am sorry to intervene again, but I asked a specific question. Does my hon. Friend think that the steel workers and other industrial workers need such protection written into a Statute?

Mr. Dempsey: All workers need all possible protection. If my hon. Friend adopts his present attitude, may I ask him why a former Minister of Labour introduced Measures to provide compensation for Sunday working for people in other trades? The answer is that the Minister was compelled to do so. But the people whom he was compelled to protect are the very people who will have to undertake Sunday employment if the Bill is passed. We must have Parliamentary protection for such workers—

Mr. Hamling: I am very sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but he must understand what the Clause is about. Does he think that all industrial workers need this protection written into a Bill on sport?

Mr. Dempsey: I cannot visualise steel workers selling potato crisps at a speedway meeting or a football match on a Sunday. I cannot imagine them doing Red Cross work, or acting as nurses, doctors or policemen. I am talking now of the people who will be directly employed on a Sunday if the Bill is enacted—

Mr. Hamling: I am sorry to intervene again like this, but my hon. Friend must understand that this Clause has nothing to do specifically with people employed in sport. It covers every worker in every industry and trade.

Mr. Dempsey: That is just why we are arguing against the deletion of the Clause. All those involved, including people who entertain by sport, whether it be by racing with motor cycles or kicking a ball, need protection. Adequate protection should be provided for those compelled to work in order to allow others to indulge in some form of entertainment or sport. They should have compensation. If we have sporting events on Sundays we will have to ask people to work who are not now employed on Sundays.

Mr. Hamling: That also is not true.

Mr. Dempsey: I think it is. As a former trade unionist I always argued and agitated for the five-day week. That will now go by the board. That principle is disappearing.

Mr. Hamling: No.

Mr. Dempsey: Yes, it is. These people will be working on Sundays. In certain trades exploitation is so serious and severe that an Act of Parliament had to be passed to give the workers not only double time but time off. Parliament does not pass Acts of Parliament just because hon. Members wish to sit here and debate matters from Mondays to Fridays. Parliament does so because it is compelled to take action to counteract the exploitation that has taken place.
If the Bill goes through without the inclusion of this Clause, there will be no statutory provision to compensate people employed on Sundays That is why we argue that the Clause should be included.
I admire my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). I


admired his obstinacy this morning, but I wish he would not be so obstinate this afternoon. I wish that he would say to the Minister and to those who have advised the Minister, "Enough of you. We feel that the Bill should contain a written declaration of intent and a guarantee, and it is going in". That is how I feel about it.
Then there is the question of the conscientious objector who does not wish to work on Sundays. I cannot accept the argument that this provision could not be written into an Act of Parliament because it would be difficult to enforce in the courts. We have had previous experience of the rights of conscientious objectors being written into a Bill which became an Act and was enforceable in the courts. I hope that this protection will be given to conscientious objectors because, whether or not we like it, there is today a subtle attitude of mind in relation to people who have strong conscientious objections to working on Sundays—an attitude of mind which causes employers to wish to get rid of such people as quickly as possible.
I know that certain essential industries must keep going on Sundays. From the time I was knee-high, however, I was taught to keep the Sabbath. I know the parable about the sheep that fell into the pit. I know that some industries have to keep going on Sundays, but I cannot understand why speedway events, football matches, or other events which cause large conglomerations of people to gather together, should be allowed to interfere with the solitude and beauty of the lovely Sunday afternoons that we sometimes have.
I have never understood what law, logic or convincing argument can be adduced in favour of such events taking place on Sundays. I therefore believe that the rights of people who conscientiously object to working on Sundays should be indelibly printed in the Bill, and not left hanging in the air.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: Last Friday I congratulated the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on accepting a Clause and not listening to the Minister, who suggested that at a later stage, in some other place, some sort of phrase could be written into the Bill. The sponsor was right not to take his hon. Friend's advice. But in

the intervening seven days it appears that the hon. Gentleman has been listening to the Minister.
I have piloted two Private Members' Bills through the House, and I have had a large part to play in getting another one through. I can tell the hon. Member that once a sponsor's Bill has received a Second Reading it is never wise for him to listen to what the Minister says, whether or not he is on the sponsor's side. A sponsor's job is to get his Bill through. If I had listened to what a Minister said in respect of one of my Bills it would never have reached the Statute Book. An hon. Member should get his Bill through as near as possible in the form in which he wants it. Then, if there is something wrong with it that the Ministry of Labour wants altered, let the Ministry introduce an amending Bill, but the hon. Member's Bill is by that time on the Statute Book for all time.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: My hon. and gallant Friend has sufficient experience of the House to enable him to say that. Would he go further and say that not only the sponsor of the Bill, but the members of the Standing Committee and the Members of the House considering the Bill on Report should have the benefit of knowing what the Ministry of Labour thinks about the Clause?

Sir H. Harrison: I agree. The Bill has been considered in Standing Committee which, with all the resources and the time available to a Standing Committee, decided that it was wise to include this Clause in the Bill. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), who made what he described as a "steaming" speech—I would describe it as an impassioned speech, made from the heart—was ably supported by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) on this matter. Standing Committees, particularly those which consider Private Members' Bills, are probably better informed on these matters than unorganised bodies of Members.
I do not know whether a representative from the Ministry of Labour attended the Standing Committee. I believe that the sponsor of the Bill has fallen into a trap. As I am opposed to the Bill, I am grateful to him for doing so. If he had not sought to delete the Clause, it is


more than likely that we should by now have come to a conclusion as to the Third Reading of the Bill. I therefore hope that, in the days to come, if the Bill does not get on to the Statute Book this Session, the hon. Gentleman will remember where the fault lies and rue the folly of taking advice from Ministers instead of pressing on with the Bill.
I agree that the Clause should be retained. Even though one is opposed to a Bill, one must seek always to improve it in case it is given a Third Reading. I believe that this has been the motivation of those who are labelled opponents of the Bill. The Bill is at the moment a much better Bill than it was when it came from Committee, because of the two Clauses accepted by the sponsor of the Bill.
I am very concerned about those who, for a small reward, perform services part-time at sporting events. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) spoke powerfully about the police, but there are many special policemen. At any rate, if I go to a large football match I always see special policemen on duty, many of whom are not paid, as I understand it. Are there to be more of the regular police on duty, or will they still ask the special police to go on duty for no pay? Is the whole concept of the special constabulary to be altered? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) said, there are St. John Ambulance people and others who attend to render succour in case people faint or come to harm.
Parliament has prescribed double pay on Sundays because it felt that men should not have to work on Sundays. I want the Clause to be retained, because I believe that the Bill will make extra work for people on Sundays, whether they like it or not. It is part of the whole arrangement—"You are part of the show in this sport, and you will have to be employed".
I hope, therefore, that the sponsor of the Bill will now accept that the Clause is necessary, or, better still, in view of the opposition which his Bill has aroused—I do not suppose that he will. and he will think it right to go on—go away and think about it during the Summer Recess, bringing back a Measure which is more acceptable to the House.
As a Parliamentarian, I insist that it is this House of Commons and another place which, with the assent of the Crown, make our laws. There is too much nowadays of Governments—my own Government, too—telling us that this or that is not right because the Department does not like it. It is this House of Commons, in its collective wisdom, which makes our laws. That is what we are here for.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: This is one occasion when I have not been wearied by rising nearly 20 times and not being called. I am so glad that the House of Commons has come back to its senses on this subject and that so many hon. Members wished to speak. It was led in that wiser direction by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), who spoke with a voice which has hardly been heard in all the debates on this Bill, the authentic voice of the trade union movement of Britain. What he said has given a standard and tone to the debate which it did not quite have on Second Reading and which I doubt that it attained in Standing Committee.
It has been said that the sponsor of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), has had a pistol put to his head since the Committee stage and has been forced to accept removal of Clause 4. Worse is happening to the Bill. In my view, he is being robbed, and robbed of a part of his Bill, involving perhaps, the most important consideration of all, for our working people, which led a good many trade union Members on this side to support him—the Sunday work safeguards. Many of them believed that they would have in the Bill at least some assurance of protection specifically for the people affected by the Bill.

Mr. Hamling: Mr. Hamling rose—

Mr. MacMillan: I am not saying that the Clause itself is perfect. My hon. Friend need not say that it is not, because I agree.

Mr. Hamling: But we are debating this Clause and no other.

Mr. MacMillan: That is the Committee's responsibility. Although I have spoken in, I believe, every debate on this subject since 1935, including the


Second Reading of this Bill, I was not, as a Scotsman, a member of the Standing Committee. That is an exclusion from which we Scottish Members suffer: whether that exclusion is decided on a nationalist basis or some other more legitimate basis, I am not sure. Although I was, last week, almost challenged by one hon. Friend on my right to speak on this Bill, I must remind the House that it deals with a subject of great concern to many millions of people throughout the whole country. Never was this demonstrated more than by the trade union voices on this side today.
The Bill can affect millions of people in their working lives, throughout seven days of the week. For economic reasons, by the moral pressure of employers, and in other ways, people will be compelled to be available for work—not necessarily actually working, but available to be called to work on any of the seven days.

Mr. Hamling: Will my hon. Friend now press for the inclusion of Scotland in the Bill in order to give his Scottish workers the same protection?

Mr. MacMillan: My hon. Friend is really naïve in many ways. One would think that no provision had ever been made in a statute for a specific group of workers, including Scotsmen. Of course it has, in one Act after another. My hon. Friend may not have been here in the days when these things were done—though I think that he was here for some—but shopworkers and many other groups have had specific safeguards written into statutes to give them protection.
We are dealing here with some of the most helpless workers in this country, some of those most deprived of social security. It is curious that this point has not been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who has for many years put up such a gallant fight on behalf of people in the class employed in the entertainment world to which I am now referring, made an excellent case today. He and I have often argued the same case for two widely different groups of workers. The variety artistes suffer a special deprivation. They are not engaged on a contract of service with an employer; but on a contract for ser-

vices, and therefore, they are also deprived of unemployment insurance benefit and industrial injuries benefit, and do not come under Class 1 insurance. They are in this respect among the most unfortunate section of the working community, being wholly dependent on the whim of an employer who can engage and sack them, but does not cover them for unemployment benefit, as they are classed "self-employed."
The same applies to the textile workers in the Western Isles. I was asked how this affects my constituency, and the answer is that the Amendment's impact could be said to affect one way or another the interests of a good number of classes of workers throughout the country.

Mr. Hamling: Not in Scotland.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: My hon. Friend is missing the point. There are people—textile weavers—in my constituency and also here in England among the variety artists who are suffering from the same social security deprivation to which I referred. My constituency reference is not a special reference to the Amendment as such—I was just making the point in passing, regarding the need to bring all such people into full insurance. Less protection is given to the people I have mentioned than to almost any other group in the community. It is not that the battle has not been hard fought, for my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and I have both fought it, but the fact still remains that those workers have no protection in unemployment. Because they have no unemployment insurance benefit and no Class 1 insurance, they are under greater pressure of economic necessity to take what jobs they can get on any and every day. They are in a very weak position vis-a-vis those hiring the services.
My hon. Friend said that the Clause went far too wide. He said that even journalists might be affected, and, of course, in one respect, they will. They will be expected to do a lot more Sunday reporting when there is a great deal more legalised Sunday sport and entertainment for ever greater numbers of people throughout the country.
The point has also been made by most of us here during these debates that a


large number of ancillary activities must involve large numbers of workers other than purely professional sportsmen or players, or the people who are the actual professionals in the entertainment world.
The bus drivers were inevitably mentioned, and there is a further extension of the argument concerning them. They are not in plentiful supply, and we have had, all over the country, to employ a large number of immigrants, and been very glad to do so. I do not know what my hon. Friend the Minister is worried about, but he seems to suffer from a kind of schizophrenia in his unconvincing impartiality, being at one moment officially impartial, and the next weighing in entirely in favour of the Bill, and strongly opposing every argument against it. That is a general comment by several hon. Member who have spoken today which I hope has got home to him.
If a bus driver is employed on Sunday in connection with highly organised spectacles and sports on a Sunday, which would require a good deal of transport to take people to and from the places where the entertainments or games are held, he may be employed for only just over four hours on that day. If the Clause goes through, he would and must still receive compensation or have a full weekday off in lieu, quite apart from the half-day which he has at present by statute. That means that he will be engaged for one weekday less on essential work as a bus driver, because he has been engaged for a little over four hours on far less essential duties on Sunday. The same will apply to many other workers, at the very time when we are trying to move more workers from service industry into manufacturing industry. This runs against Government policy, about which there has been a good deal of heart-burning on both sides of the House, in the Labour Party and in industry.
3.45 p.m.
It is estimated that the present arrangements affect about 200,000 people in Sunday work in entertainment and sport directly. However, once the Bill is passed, the number of occasions for such work will be greatly extended. Great crowds of spectators will be involved, and they, too, will have to be serviced with the ancillary work of many more

people. Unfortunately, no exact estimate can be made, but that extending Sunday work that is what worries hon. Members who are trade unionists as well as others here and, for other reasons, hon. Members opposite. The activities of more and more workers will be engaged more and more frequently in this less high priority work of sport and entertainment, and they will be taken away in many cases from far more important and vital work in their own trades and occupations.
It would be possible to give a long list of classes of people who will be involved. Even if the Clause is left in the Bill, with these safeguards, with provision for compensation to be paid, and with every regard to people's conscientious objections, it is possible to point out a number of hardships which inevitably will still fall upon people who are involved in the new legalised Sunday work. Reference has been made to the new burdens on workers in the catering industry, to the police and to various other essential services whose members would be called in. They represent a great many more people than the numbers employed in this type of activity at the moment.
I do not know how right or wrong the Minister is about the Amendment. It appeared to me that he was a little inconsistent, but he has had a good deal of criticism levelled against him and I do not want to lay it on further. I know that it is not his attitude or nature to want to deprive anyone who has to be available for Sunday work of the right to compensating time off during the week or to double pay in lieu. Whether the Clause is fully and specifically capable of ensuring that, I am not certain. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that it should be possible to take into consideration the consensus of opinion on the Committee which put the Clause into the Bill. It is important that it should not be rebuffed and snubbed by the House. In addition, almost every speaker in today's debate has been highly critical of the Amendment of the sponsors of the Bill for the removal of the Clause. I hope that my hon. Friend will take fully into account the consensus of opinion, in Committee and here today in favour of retaining the Clause. Perhaps, it should be more workable and specific. If it


is to be made more specific, there may have to be a Schedule of the categories affected by the Bill—if that is workable.
If the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West are not prepared to retain the Clause as it stands, may I remind them that there are facilities available in another place? The Clause may have its imperfections. As I have said, it would not necessarily provide full justice for variety artistes, who are officially classed as self-employed, Class 2, insured people. That may be one weakness of the Clause. However, the hon. Gentleman could take advantage of the facilities available in another place to bring in a form of wording which would give effect to the consensus of opinion on the Committee and that of this House in favour of safeguarding the rights of so many of our working people regarding Sunday work.

Mr. Hamling: The debate has gone on a long time, and has covered many aspects of the Clause and the Amendment that I have moved to delete it. I wish to reply to the points that have been made so that the House can come to a decision on this important matter.
I remind the House that we are discussing a Clause in the Bill, not a suggested new Clause. The Clause is drawn in such general terms that it covers every service and industry, whether essential or not. It does not arise specifically from the purposes of the Bill. I can refer only to what the Clause says, because that is what we are debating. We are not debating any hypothetical Clause that might be in the minds of hon. Members on either side. The Clause reads:
Any contract of employment which states that an employee shall work on Sundays if so required shall provide for a free day in lieu or alternatively for the payment of double-time rates of pay.
It refers to "Any contract of employment", not one relating to sport or entertainment arising from Clauses 2 and 3. We are talking about this Bill and this Clause—no other. I must keep the attention of the House on this, because that is what we have been debating. I am arguing that the Clause does not do the job which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides have been saying needs to be done. Do not blame me for that. Blame the people who put forward

the Clause and blame the Committee perhaps which carried it, but do not blame me, because I am not responsible for their mistakes.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: As my hon. Friend is refering to me, perhaps he will allow me to point out that, in my view, the implication of the Clause is different from what he suggests.

Mr. Hamling: My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) can think what he likes about what the Clause implies. If this becomes Statute the lawyers will say, "What does the law say?", not, "What does the law imply?". This is how our courts work. They will say: "This is what the law says". It is no good anyone saying what Parliament intended was so and so. That does not count. What counts is what the law says.
This is a very badly drafted Clause, as it stands, and it does not do the job. It would cover every industry and service. For that reason, I recommend that the House delete the Clause.
I will refer to some of the anomalies which might arise. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) waxed eloquent about the rights of trade unions in the past and how he has been fighting since 1919 for workers in the printing trade. I am aware of that. However, at no time have the workers in the printing trade had a Statute to fall back on concerning Sunday work. They would scorn it. They would say, "We rely on our industrial strength. We do not want the law to intervene."

Mr. Wilkins: Mr. Wilkins rose—

Mr. Hamling: I am sorry, but time does not permit me to give way.

Mr.Wilkins: Mr.Wilkins rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hamling: The people who are now working in that industry, and have been for 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 years, do not require this Clause. Yet this is the Clause we are introducing. Many thousands concerned with sport are employed on Sundays. I speak of those employed in catering establishments at Brand's Hatch, Goodwood, polo matches, and so on. They do not require this


protection, because they have trade unions and good employers. I suggest that we are not taking a hammer to crack a nut; we are taking a gigantic steam hammer to crush a peanut. I suggest that the Clause does not do the job which is wanted and it is not necessary, because we have existing ways in which this can be done. If employers and trade unions were aware of the implications of the Clause as it affects industrial relations in every trade and industry, they would feel that we were going a lot further than we have gone so far.
The debate has gone on for a long time. Every other speaker has spoken against my proposition and in favour of the Clause. I think that it ought to be possible now to come to a decision on it so that an opinion can be expressed—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Down, South (Captain Orr)

is in favour of the House expressing an opinion.

Captain Orr: I think that the House ought to come to a decision, but not just yet, because many hon. Members still wish to express their opinions.

Mr. Hamling: Very well. The House will decide, but other private Members have Bills awaiting consideration. They have rights, and no opponent of this Bill has a right to exercise free speech to the extent of depriving others of free speech. I think that the House ought to come to a decision.

Mr. Spriggs: Mr. Spriggs rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes 28.

Division No. 131.]
AYES
[3.55 p.m.


Astor, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mikardo, Ian


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Morris, Alfred (Wytnenshawe)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Albert


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Newens, Stan


Costain, A. P.
Howie, W.
Oram, Albert E.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hunt, John
Peyton, John


Delargy, Hugh
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rees, Merlyn


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Robinson, R t. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Dickens, James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Driberg, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roebuck, Roy


Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Ellis, John
Lee, John (Reading)
Skeffington, Arthur


English, Michael
Lever, Harold (Cheatham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Ennals, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Lipton, Marcus
Teeling, Sir William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lubbock, Eric
Tomney, Frank


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacColl, James
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
White, Mrs. Eirene


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Maxwell, Robert
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fowler, Gerry
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Worsley, Marcus


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mayhew, Christopher



Gibson-Watt, David
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhart, Philip
Mendelson, J. J.
Mr. John Parker and




Mr. William Wilson.




NOES


Bell, Ronald
Hiley, Joseph
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Body, Richard
Hooson, Emlyn
Nott, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Kenyon, Clifford
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cordle, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wilkins, W. A.


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert



Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macdonald, A. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Farr, John
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Mr. Michael Alison and


Goodhew, Victor
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Sir Cyril Black.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 32 (Majority for Closure)

It being after Four o'clock, the debate Debate further adjourned

Debate to be resumed upon Friday, 24th May.

CLEAN AIR BILL

Order for Committee read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Committee deferred till Friday next.

WILD PLANTS PROTECTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 17th May.

CLIENTS' MONEY (ACCOUNTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 24th May.

LIVE HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

LAND COMPENSATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 (AMEND- MENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

PREVENTION OF CRIME (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [5th April].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

SHOPS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

GAMING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

ROYAL OBSERVER CORPS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for the opportunity this afternoon to raise the subject of the Royal Observer Corps. This force is a volunteer corps formed, I believe, in 1925, but certainly it rendered invaluable service during the last world war, particularly during the Battle of Britain.
It is remarkable to note that this year the Royal Air Force has celebrated its 50th anniversary, and the Government seem to be marking the occasion by abolishing Fighter Command and cutting in half the Royal Observer Corps, the two elements which were so successful during the Battle of Britain.
Anyone who served in Fighter Command will remember with great pride and gratitude the vital part played by the Royal Observer Corps. I remember only too well how the sector operations room relied heavily on the plotting and reporting of enemy aircraft once they


had crossed our coast. This knowledge and experience of aircraft reporting and recognition has continued to be valuable to the country since the end of the war and it has been spread geographically across the country.
Since 1956, the principal rôle of this Corps has been the detection of nuclear bursts and fall out. Nearly 1,600 posts are spread throughout the British Isles, and I believe that most of them are 13 feet underground and built of solid concrete. They have instruments for measuring the size of nuclear bursts and their direction and position and for measuring the height of the explosion, and they have contacts with the sector operation room and also give warning by radio, land line, sirens and rockets. It is assumed that in the event of a major nuclear attack of this nature the public would be dependent on the information and warning from these posts.
I understand that from 1st April this year 686 posts are to be closed, leaving about 873. This means, certainly in the South of England, that we shall be cutting out alternate posts and therefore the distances between posts will be correspondingly increased. I am told that this means probably an increase in distances between posts from three miles to five miles.
What is the effect on the performance of these posts of halving their number in an area in this way and making them more widely spread? Can they cover these larger areas as effectively as they could cover the smaller areas in the past? What is to happen to the redundant posts? Answering a Written Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on 10th April, who asked how many will he destroyed and how the remainder will be utilised or disposed of, the Under-Secretary of State said:
686 posts are being closed and their communications and equipment withdrawn. They will then be disposed of under the normal arrangements for surplus Government property".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 281.]
I do not know whether by that he meant destroying them. The TSR.2 was regarded as surplus Government property, and not only the aircraft but the jigs and tools were destroyed.
On 1st May my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force:
Is it a fact that in connection with the run-down of the Royal Observer Corps considerable public funds are to be spent on demolishing the substantial concrete structures in which they operate? If this is so, is it really sense?
The Minister replied:
I would require notice of that question. It is one that has not come my way".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1968; Vol. 763, c. 1095.]
I hope that we shall get an answer to that question today. Are those 686 surplus posts to be destroyed? I can see no case for destroying them. If they are 13 feet underground covered with earth or grass, and with small entrances or exits, it seems absurd to waste money and resources on destroying them. In any event, I should have thought that they might be preserved for possible future use. It would only mean going into them later and pumping out water from time to time, since they are purely concrete block-houses under the ground. I should imagine that that is the sensible thing to do.
There is also the question of the personnel in the Corps. I understand that whereas we used to have 16 to 24 persons per post there is now to be a limit of 10, and I should like confirmation of that if it is true. If it is, it seems to me to be cutting things much too fine, because I should think that a post of this nature would require three watches of three persons as an absolute bare minimum. If they are to be restricted to 10, that leaves only one spare man, and I believe that to be a dangerous limitation.
What is happening about the commandant who used to be stationed at Stanmore, and was a regular Royal Air Force officer, now that Fighter Command has ceased to exist? Has he been persuaded to go to the Home Office, which was not popular when it was suggested before? I hope that we may also have an answer to that question today.
On 22nd February the Under-Secretary of State made the following statement:
Parallel with and complementary to the emergency system of control,"—


he was talking about civil defence—
we have the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation, which includes the Royal Observer Corps. The purpose of this organisation is to provide public warning of an actual attack, and afterwards to provide information about the location and power of the nuclear weapons exploded, and the distribution and level of radioactive fall-out. It is a vital part of our preparations, and it is complete. It can be brought to operational readiness very quickly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 807.]
Is it really complete today, if it is being reduced? Can it be brought into operational readiness very quickly? If so, how quickly? I understand that in my area of Hertfordshire the Watford centre—not just a post—is to be closed. What effect has that on the effectiveness of the whole system? It is difficult to know where to look for information. I have been quoting both the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. On 29th February the Home Secretary, in a debate on civil defence, moved an Amendment to an Opposition Motion. The Amendment expressed the view that the House
…expresses its appreciation to the members of the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service for their services to the cause of Civil Defence…—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1792.]
The right hon. Gentleman did not go on to mention the Royal Observer Corps and it was unfortunate that that body, which has served the country so well, was not mentioned on that occasion. I readily admit that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned it later in the debate, but it was regrettable that it was not mentioned in the wording of the Amendment.
There seems to be a complete lack of appreciation by the Government of the value of voluntary effort. During recent months we have had the announcement of the disbandment of the Civil Defence organisation, involving about 70,000 people, and the A.F.S., involving another 14,000 voluntary workers. The T.A.V.R.III, the Territorial Army, which too, was to have been disbanded has, as a result of much pressure from my hon. Friends and from the volunteers themselves—they offered to serve for nothing—had its disbandment placed in abeyance. Now the Royal Observer Corps is to be halved.
We are told that two factors were taken into account in deciding this reduction

in our home defences; first, our financial circumstances; and, secondly, the risk of nuclear attack. In other words, it is thought that the risk is much lower than it ever has been. I do not think that the second excuse stands. Even if the risk of nuclear attack has lessened—and I still say that that depends more on the whims of politicians in other countries than on any firm facts—what about a conventional attack?
Are we certain that there will be no circumstances in which foreign aircraft will invade our air space? One part of the air in which we are vulnerable is called the "low air"—that is, the space in which aircraft flying at a low altitude—contour hugging as it is known—can penetrate because we do not have radar cover to disclose their presence. Are we not vulnerable in this area? If we have no airborne early warning system—we asked Questions about this the other day, but did not receive Answers to encourage us—then the Royal Observer Corps might be our only hope of having a report of such low-flying aircraft.
As to the first factor, our financial situation, it is absurd to suggest that, even under the present Government, Britain cannot afford these safeguards for its security. After all, the voluntary services represent the best value of all. The Government need provide very little by way of equipment and organisation and the people are there practically for nothing. I therefore hope that the Minister will say that second thoughts will be given to the Government's lamentable decision in this matter, that the posts will be preserved and that the volunteers who wish to stay on will be used in the remaining posts.

4.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) for raising this subject because it gives me an opportunity, which I appreciate, to pay tribute to the Royal Observer Corps, to note the important part which the Corps has to play in home preparations and to pay tribute to the work it has done in the past, not only in peacetime but notably in the last war.
If I was not as fulsome in the tributes I paid in the two debates to which the hon. Gentleman referred, it was because,


in a sense, we were saying goodbye to the Civil Defence Corps and the A.F.S., which were being disbanded. As I said then—and I will elaborate on this now—the Royal Observer Corps is not being disbanded. It has a great future.
The Royal Observer Corps is, of course, the reporting element of the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation. It might be helpful if I briefly explain what this organisation is and the part the Corps plays in it. The Warning and Monitoring Organisation has been designed to ensure that the public can be given warning of air or missile attack and, afterwards, of the presence of radioactive fallout. It is also responsible for providing fall-out information to civilian and military authorities, including those of our neighbouring N.A.T.O. Allies.
The main tasks of the Corps within the Organisation are to detect and report nuclear explosions, to measure their strength, location and height, to measure the intensity of radioactive fall-out, and to collate and distribute all this information. The Corps is also responsible for displaying nuclear burst and fall-out information at a number of R.A.F. centres, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force is present this afternoon.
The Corps' last-war rôle of low-flying aircraft recognition and reporting is no longer a current operational requirement, although the traditional skills of aircraft recognition are being retained. It would be a pity if these skills were to be lost. Considerable enthusiasm is shown for it by the Corps, and the cost to the Government is negligible.
The Royal Observer Corps is a uniform civilian organisation which, by virtue of its long and outstanding service in the last war, has forged close ties with the Royal Air Force, although it is not a part of it. It is administered by the Air Department of the Ministry of Defence.
The Home Office is responsible for the Warning and Monitoring Organisation as a whole and for the operational policy and control of the Royal Observer Corps although, naturally, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence work

in close collaboration on matters affecting the Corps.
Earlier this year, as will be recalled, the Government decided to put civil defence on a care and maintenance basis. The hon. Gentleman challenged the reasons, but I will not now go into the lengthy arguments which we then had. I have explained on other occasions that the effect of this decision, broadly speaking, is that we are preserving the physical assets that have been built up for civil defence purposes, but are reducing civil defence activity in various fields, as well as ensuring that local authorities and other essential services maintain a core of knowledge and experience.
On some civil defence work it is possible to preserve this knowledge and experience with small numbers of people. But the Warning and Monitoring Organisation is more complex, and the techniques and skills needed for the rapid and accurate handling of information about nuclear bursts and fall-out have to be kept in constant practice. We therefore decided that notwithstanding the drastic changes we have felt obliged to make elsewhere, we should retain the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation, including the Royal Observer Corps, more or less in its present form and almost with its present capabilities. Its buildings, communications and equipment are substantially complete. We considered, however, that some reduction should be made in running costs, and changes have been made which will reduce the current expenditure of £2·3 million by about £½ million annually by 1969–70.
It was essential that these economies should be achieved without impairing the Organisation's ability to give warning to the public, and first priority has been given to maintaining the attack and fallout systems and to improving and completing communications for this purpose. But we are making some economies on those parts of the system that provide a fall-out and monitoring service to civil and military authorities. We are aiming, as the hon. Gentleman has said, to reduce the number of Royal Observer Corps posts from 1,559 to 873.
The redundant posts will be disposed of, and in some cases, if there is a demand by Government authority or


local authorities, they will be made available to them. Some of the areas of the posts will be required for agricultural purposes, and if there are any agricultural former owners they will receive priority if they wish to resume ownership of the land where the posts are established. Consideration is being given to the retention, in what one might call a cocooned state, of a number of posts that will come out of service, in addition to the 873 which we are retaining.
Group Headquarters will be cut from 29 to 27. One of the Group Headquarters being closed is at Watford, the other is Leeds. The Commandant will continue as an officer of the Royal Air Force. A further two Group Headquarters—Truro and Oban—will be reduced in status. The complement of the Corps is being reduced from approximately 25,000 to 12,500 members. The hon. Member said that it was being halved. It is, in terms of establishment, but since the strength is about 17,500, the actual number of existing volunteers who will become surplus is between 5,000 and 6,000.
I would like to make it quite clear that the reductions I have mentioned will not impair the warning system. They will, however, reduce to some extent the organisation's monitoring capability; but it is still adequate to provide the necessary fallout and monitoring information service, which will meet our obligations to the R.A.F. and to N.A.T.O. countries.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of the strength of posts. The figure of 10—that is, a chief observer, together with nine observers in three watches of three observers—is considered to be adequate to meet peacetime as well as wartime requirements. We are satisfied that this reduction will not undermine the capability of the teams of observers.
The future of the Royal Observer Corps lies with the Warning and Monitoring Organisation. Its current task of reporting nuclear explosions and fallout would be as vital to this country in the event of a nuclear war as was its traditional task of aircraft reporting 25 years ago. Today it occupies a special place in home defence. The

Corps is well equipped to carry its increased responsibilities. It has its underground posts and controls, its equipment and communications. Improvements are continually being made: at the moment, Group Headquarters is being adapted to take tele-printer transmission, and radio is to be installed. There is, therefore, a substantial future not only for the Corps but for the volunteers who make it up.
I am naturally sorry that it has been found necessary to dispense with the services of some of the volunteers. The hon. Member rightly said that this country owes much to the service of volunteers in many types of organisation, both in wartime and peacetime. I would not accept the view that he expressed that this Government do not recognise the value of voluntary service. Except for the United States, this country has a wider network of voluntary organisaions, fulfilling peacetime functions, than any other country. Many of them are encouraged and assisted by the Government, and many hon. Members on this side of the House—such as are still here today; there are slightly more hon. Members on this side than on the opposite side—have spent a great deal of time in voluntary service.
I am sorry that it has been found necessary to dispense with the services of some volunteers because of the reduction of posts and Group Headquarters, and on behalf of my right hon. Friend and the Government I want to thank them for the services that they have rendered. The Corps has a most valuable contribution to make in the future as part of the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation. Although we do not wish to see the skills of the Corps put to use, this is a form of preparation that I am sure we should be unwise to do without.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for giving me this opportunity both of explaining the future rôle of the Corps and indicating the support that the Government give both to the importance of its rôle and the value of the individuals who help to make it up.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.